Now that the unthinkable - but perhaps inevitable - has happened, and America and the world at large is faced with a second Trump administration, I'd like to use this thread to keep an eye on what he does, and what he does not do. I'm definitely not one for giving him a second chance, but is it even possible he may have learned from the mistakes of his previous term? Will he even have seen them as such? Will he keep the promises/act on the threats he made during his campaign, and how will America suffer, or even benefit from his presidency?
Post your thoughts here. I intend to try to keep pace with his progress (or regress) over the next four years, in as much as I can. If nothing else, this thread will serve as a place to discuss, moan about, air your fears about and comment on the new presidency.
For now, the promises/threats on his "first day" are:
* Deportation of all undocumented/illegal immigrants, no matter how long they've been in the USA
* Large tariffs on foreign imports (10 - 20%)
* Weaponise the Department of Justice by firing "disloyal" employess and installing his own yes men and women
* Clear house in Federal organisations such as the FBI, again replacing those he considers not loyal to him with those who will rubberstamp his decisions
Other worries (not specifically threatened, but based on his first term)
Reduction of action on climate change
Withdrawal from NATO
Stoppage of support for Ukraine
Nationwide abortion ban
Tightening of the grip of Big Business/Big Pharma/Insert Big here on the economy, squeezing out the little guy
Increase in Racial disparity
Increasing isolation of America
Possible cozying up to North Korea
Refusal to recognise, never mind deal with the next big pandemic
and of course, the big one...
Project 2025
A little tune to usher in the second Trump presidency.
To the tune of "What the World Needs Now"
What the Trump years bring is hate, just hate
It's the only thing that he knows how to create.
What we know we'll see is just more hate
Oh but just for some, not those earning millions.
Look, we don't need another four years
Of a man who'll bring hatred to the world
Of black people, Asians and Mexicans too
Girls who want to be boys, boys who want to be girls
There's enough injustice in the world
To satisy the most hate-filled xenophobe
And people don't need to be feeling scared
What they need is real hope.
(Fucked up a little on the verses, but it ain't easy, believe me)
Trump Planning to Unleash Artificial Intelligence by Repealing Restrictions (https://futurism.com/the-byte/trump-repeal-restrictions-ai)
"We will repeal Joe Biden's dangerous Executive Order that hinders AI innovation and imposes radical left-wing ideas on the development of this technology."
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRt4loKd5cHBuiXFuCbZz4Tm-ohWF4UFKRGKQ&s)
Trump won't be so smart when AI works out quickly that it doesn't need him...
Elon must have shown Trump this AI-created video of him and Biden eating spaghetti and he was completely sold.
Pssh, AI could never hope to create true art, like the masterpiece that is Skibidi Biden.
(https://nomoreindustries.com/cdn/shop/products/KangKodosPins_1875x.jpg?v=1534183950)
Quote from: Trollheart on Nov 08, 2024, 03:43 PMA little tune to usher in the second Trump presidency.
To the tune of "What the World Needs Now"
What the Trump years bring is hate, just hate
It's the only thing that he knows how to create.
What we know we'll see is just more hate
Oh but just for some, not those earning millions.
Look, we don't need another four years
Of a man who'll bring hatred to the world
Of black people, Asians and Mexicans too
Girls who want to be boys, boys who want to be girls
There's enough injustice in the world
To satisy the most hate-filled xenophobe
And people don't need to be feeling scared
What they need is real hope.
(Fucked up a little on the verses, but it ain't easy, believe me)
I think it was Alan Partridge who first turned me onto Burt Bacharach, but that change in tempo at 2:40 with the ensuing chord progressions was a right explosion. :band:
At the very least he's going to fuck up this country for years to come.
Undoubtedly, but this time there are so many more people who have themselves to blame, outside of the shit-weak Democrats. It's not just the MAGA crowd now; more people voted for him than almost any other president in recent history possibly. It's like that scene out of Star Wars Revenge of the Sith, when Padme says "So this is how democracy dies: to thunderous applause." You also have to recall Orwell: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on an upturned human face forever." Shudder.
Here are the nominations he's made so far. More to follow obviously. If anyone wants to add comments about any of them, feel free: as an Irishman and definitely not-expert on American politics, I'm getting my information from the usual sources. These are, obviously, the merest pencil sketches of people about whom I know nothing.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Susie_Wiles_2020.png/440px-Susie_Wiles_2020.png)
Name: Susan Wiles
Age: 67
Position: Chief of Staff
Previous experience: Trump's Campaign Advisor, for both presidential runs. Also ran Reagan's successful 1980 campaign.
Historic interest: First woman to hold the position ever in a US administration.
Trump says: "Susie Wiles just helped me achieve one of the greatest political victories in American history, and was an integral part of both my 2016 and 2020 successful campaigns. [She is]tough, smart, innovative, and is universally admired and respected. It is a well-deserved honour to have Susie as the first-ever female Chief of Staff in United States history."
Talk about dealing with the devil! Seems Susan Wiles also lent her expertise to one Ron De Santis, who described her as "the best in the business"! She later reportedly described this as "the worst mistake of my life", and it seems that her stepping back from the 2020 campaign at the request (order?) of the Florida governor is widely seen as a key reason why Trump had trouble in that state, De Santis playing his own power games no doubt. She is CEO of the Trump PAC "Save America", which, among other things, has dealt with the legal fees of Trump cronies indicted on crimes, and she is seen as almost the power behind the throne.
(https://www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Zeldin.jpg)
Name: Lee Zeldin
Age: 44
Position: Environmental Protection Agency
Previous experience: NY State Senate and NY House of Representatives
I hate this guy so much as a NYer. He takes money from Fossil Fuel lobbyists and he's basically being put in charge of the EPA to gut it. Cut staff, cut regulations and just go full tilt. A case of the wolf in the hen house. We are so fucking cooked.
Ugh Elon Musk is taking his meme show to the government as part of a made up Agency Department Of Government Efficiency. (DOGE)
Vivek is joining him. The department is so efficient that it needs two heads of the department. Will do the official write up later unless Troll wants to do it.
Orwellian.
Thanks
@DJChameleon : I am going to be doing a full write-up, but feel free to contribute anything you want. Incidentally, have you noticed? DOGE - isn't that what they used to call the rulers of Venice back in the 13th or 14th century? Coincidence?
Back later.
Quote from: Trollheart on Nov 13, 2024, 10:32 PMThanks @DJChameleon : I am going to be doing a full write-up, but feel free to contribute anything you want. Incidentally, have you noticed? DOGE - isn't that what they used to call the rulers of Venice back in the 13th or 14th century? Coincidence?
Back later.
It's this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_(meme)) that it's referencing Trolls, not the rulers of Venice back in the 13th century.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Original_Doge_meme.jpg)
Quote from: SGR on Nov 13, 2024, 10:35 PMIt's this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_(meme)) that it's referencing Trolls, not the rulers of Venice back in the 13th century.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Original_Doge_meme.jpg)
Thanks but I don't get it. Have you ever had a pet doge? I had several, and many cates?
Anyway I like mine better. I suppose you could reverse it couldn't you? If it was the Government of Department Efficiency, we only need MPERO and another R and the truth is known.
Hmm.
Goverment of Department Efficiency, Management, Personnel, Executive Revision Over Rights.
There you go: GOD EMPEROR.
Conspiracy theory my arse!
:laughing:
(https://preview.redd.it/lets-not-forget-this-gem-v0-xzhp2ni9yepd1.jpeg?width=464&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54aa1317212745e33ea4ad0d204513928fe71503)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Lee_Zeldin_new_official_portrait.jpg/440px-Lee_Zeldin_new_official_portrait.jpg)
Name: Lee Zeldin
Age: 44
Position: Head of EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
Previous Experience: US Congress; failed attempt at Governor for New York
Historic Interest:
Trump says: "Lee, with a very strong legal background, has been a true fighter for America First policies. He will ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions that will be enacted in a way to unleash the power of American businesses, while at the same time maintaining the highest environmental standards."
I suppose it goes without saying, but he was a staunch ally of Trump during the Democrats' attempts to get the former president impeached, and was also one of his many yes-men who agreed that the 2020 election had been stolen. I wonder if they ever got it back? Hope they had it insured. I did warn them. What sort of career has he had, in particular that may, or probably may not, qualify him for such a post? Has he advocated for green policies, the elimination of fossil fuels, banning fracking or reducing carbon emissions?
As we say here, has he fuck as like. A vehement opponent of climate change (wonder what less harsh-sounding, less scary word they'll use when Trump is back in power - Global Warming made sense), he has stated his opposition to the Paris Agreement (possibly, though don't quote me, on the basis that anything that comes out of France has to be intrinsically bad - remember "freedom fries"? Give me strength!) and on his having been announced to the post had this to say: "We will restore US energy dominance, revitalize our auto industry to bring back American jobs, and make the US the global leader of AI. We will do so while protecting access to clean air and water." So clearly he's not one for the electric cars, renewable energy and has never seen Terminator 2!
No friend to women either, he had consistently lobbied for the overturn of Roe v Wade, and even if it had remained, he was digging his heels in and publicly stated "nothing changes in New York". He's a Jew, and while that's not strictly relevant to the post, it does mean he strongly supports Israel in their genocidal war against Gaza and Lebanon, and anyone else who gets the fuck in their way. His military service, if it can be called such, consists of intelligence work which he then ditched to go into the Army Reserve, possibly (though of course I can't confirm this) worried he might actually be sent into a warzone. Like, maybe Jersey.
He is opposed to bail reform (which advocates the removal of the need for cash bail in the less serious cases), looks to be (from my limited reading and skim through his Wiki page) against education for all, didn't mask up or practice social distancing during Covid - though he did get vaccinated: talk about hedging your bets! - and didn't think hospital employees or schoolchildren needed to be vaccinated. I'd say he was one of those who believed Covid was a hoax, or "a flu", but then again he got the shot, so what can you say about that?
He voted against the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, wanted to repeal Obamacare, and was and is against same-sex marriage. Once Trump came to power he whined about the FBI investigating his new master while also snarling that they should have continued investigating Hilary Clinton's emails (so no double standard there then)and voted against measures to avert the - seemingly usual - government shutdown in 2018.
That's all I got on a quick skim. DJ, if you want to add more, feel free: I'm sure you know a lot more about him than I do, and have personal experience of living under him.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Elon_Musk_Royal_Society_crop.jpg/440px-Elon_Musk_Royal_Society_crop.jpg)
Name: Elon Musk (but you can call him Your Imperial Majesty)
Age: 53 (thanks to
@Lexi Darling for the correction)
Position: Head of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency)
Previous Experience: Zee-ro
Historic Interest: Not entirely sure, but I doubt the world's richest man has ever served in a US government administration before.
What do I need to tell you about Musky? A far-right, reactionary demagogue, Covid-denier, anti-vaxxer and the richest man on the planet, the man who ruined Twitter for other men and didn't even have the decency to pay its cab fare home (I mean, fucking X? Come on, you unimaginative cunt! I hated it, but they spent years putting that platform together and you just shit all over it!) and a man who epitomises the title of a Jame Bond movie. Yes, for Mrs. Musk's clever little boy, who will soon run the planet, TWINE is a good motto, but that's okay, because if the world is not enough, he has space at his command too.
Yes, the man who has all but but a copyright on the Final Frontier and denied access to any but the super-super-super-add-a-few-supers-rich, he is single-handedly ensuring that the only people who will ever see space are those whose bank balance is, well, astronomical. Soon to be Emperor of Mars, and the sooner the better, but before he departs on his mystical journey, there's work to do. Why travel all that way when there's a perfectly good planet to fuck up right here? And soon, we'll all be his slaves. Wait for the "innovative" new Muskdroids, who will enforce his - sorry sorry I do mean Trump's, yes of course that's what I mean, how silly of me - edicts all across the globe and turn Earth into one giant slave farm.
Well, maybe that's being a bit too hyperbolic.
Knowing Musk, there'll be two slave farms, one for white people and one for everyone else. Anyway, all praise the man after whom and before whom nobody else has been named (what kind of name is Elon anyway? Sounds like a budget airline or a software company specialising in cyber security) who is now in charge of "streamlining" the US Government departments, read, firing anyone he doesn't deem necessary. Just wait till he expands his programme worldwide, and gets rid of all non-essential personnel on the planet. Well I'm fucked anyway.
And if I see that as the premise of a dystopian science fiction movie any time, I'm sure as hell gonna sue!
Wait, isn't Elon in his 50s? No way that fucker is 73 lol.
And he'll be helped by this guy (look I know it's both of them in the picture, but I had to take this one: doesn't he look like some sort of Indian vampire about to take a bite out of you? Very appropriate, I would think)
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/e336/live/0f7a8790-a162-11ef-b6b6-f7b5cd109b31.jpg.webp)
Name: Vivek Ramaswamy
Age: 39
Position: Commissioner of DOGE
Previous Experience: None
Historic Interest: Again I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong, but first Indian to hold such a high-ranking post?
Trump says: "Together, these two wonderful Americans [him and Musk] will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies. I look forward to Elon and Vivek making changes to the Federal Bureaucracy with an eye on efficiency and, at the same time, making life better for all Americans."
Luckily, this man has no special interests to protect. I mean, when has Big Pharma ever threatened the economy? Naturally, the man is a bigot and a Covid-denier, calling it "Covid-ism" - whatever the fuck that is: did anyone want Covid? Arsehole. Oh and he also decries "climate-ism" (hopefully he gets swept away in the next big hurricane) and "gender ideology". Sounds like a nice guy. And with a name like Vivek, and with no offence to any Indians, doesn't he sound even more like a vampire? Which is what, it looks, like he's going to be as he savages the environment, probably begging the crumbs from his lord and master's table as Musk chows down on climate change, renewable energy and protection of the planet. Yum!
He's had no political career, but it is interesting - and galling - to hear that before he even graduated from law school he was worth 15 million, due to his interests in biotech, finance and of course pharmaceutical industries. So just the man to fire people who may be making not minimum wage but hardly coining it in, working in smaller federal government departments soon to be either ruthlessly cut back or even eliminated altogether.
Nice to see he has the common touch though, describing as a "victimless crime" the pushing of the price of a life-saving drug through the roof. He descibes himself as "anti-woke" and apparently has no issues destroying the environment in the pursuit of profit. He said his company would "do whatever allows them to be most successful over the long run without regard to political, social, cultural or environmental agendas."
He ran for the presidential nomination himself, but backed down when Trump snarled at him to get the fuck back in his lane, and couldn't bow and scrape fast enough, throwing his support behind His Orangeness in the hope of no doubt obtaining such a post as he has now been granted. I suppose, with his pharma background, we should be grateful the cunt wasn't given charge of the CDC!
Sigh. It goes on: he's against affirmative action, women's rights, abortion, LGBTQ (calling the whole "movement" a "cult", which is pretty rich when you slavishly follow Trump but however) and - get this - had he been elected to the White House proposed to shut down (not just restructure now, shut down) the Education Department, the FBI, ATF, IRS, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the FDA. To quote another famous and fictional Indian, oh my various gods!
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Nov 14, 2024, 02:25 AMWait, isn't Elon in his 50s? No way that fucker is 73 lol.
Fuck you're right! Maths was never my strong suit! D'oh!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Thomas_D._Homan.jpg/440px-Thomas_D._Homan.jpg)
Name: Tom Homan
Age: 62
Position: Border Czar
Previous Experience: Director of ICE; Police officer
Historic Interest: So far, first Obama appointee to make it into Trump's cabinet.
Trump says: "I have Tom Homan lined up, we have the greatest people: we're bringing back Tom Homan."
This is an interesting one. Now, don't expect me to say this guy is, as it were, the "good Nazi", as Albert Speer tried to paint himself after the fall of Hitler, but he was appointed to his post as head of ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (was ever an acronym more appropriate?) and was the guy who advocated separating immigrant children from their parents! And Obama approved it! Jesus. It's probably due to these hardline views, which dovetail so well with his own, that the president-elect has given him the job instead of firing him. Let's see what else we can find out about him. Just how far up Trump's fat hole has he been, or will he go?
Oay, opposes the policy of sanctuary cities, commented on Fox News, yes, yes, very good. (https://media.tenor.com/7KyETd_9kAYAAAAM/hate-starwars.gif) Clearly hates immigrants, another plus. Believes any politicians who support sanctuary cities should be charged with a crime, also asserts that a third of immigrant women get raped coming across the border (no hard evidence I assume). Said this about his experiences on border patrol "So I get there, I'm walking around in the back of a tractor-trailer with 19 dead aliens at my feet, (I fucking KNEW the government was lying to us! Roswell indeed!) including a five-year-old little boy who suffocated in the back of that tractor-trailer. And I had a five year old at the time. I didn't sleep for three days." and signed on for Project 2025.
Anything good about him? Well, other than the quote above, which seems to indicate (or which he wants to seem to indicate) that he kicks out immigrants on an almost merciful basis, he did oppose the invasion of Ukraine, kind of - made some sort of pointless lip service stand or something - and, ah, no. No, that's it. He's going to use an Act passed in 1798 to deport "millions of illegal aliens", saying, no doubt with a cowboy hat on and chewing a cigar, "they ain't seen shit yet." I don't fucking doubt it, you cunt.
Thanks for giving us a run down on these guys' CVs, Trollheart. They make depressing reading, but I think it's a valuable service to have this info easily available. As a reward, you'll now get to dig into Matt Gaetz' insalbrious past: hasn't he just been chosen as Attorney General ?!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Noem_Portrait_2.jpg/440px-Noem_Portrait_2.jpg)
Name: Kristi Noem
Age: 52
Position: Secretary of DHS (Department of Homeland Security)
Previous Experience: Governor of South Dakota, Congresswoman and Member of the House of Representatives
Historic Interest: First female Governor of South Dakota
Trump says: "Kristi has been very strong on Border Security. She was the first Governor to send National Guard Soldiers to help Texas fight the Biden Border Crisis, and they were sent a total of eight times."
Another Covid-denier, she does seem to at least have earned her position, i.e., not had her family money buy it for her, or special interest lobbies. Seems she comes from farm stock, and worked as an intern on Capitol Hill. I don't say these things to praise her, as such, but there's no point in me making these sketch profiles complete hatchet jobs, so if there's anything good to say about any of these people who will be running the USA - and by extension, much of the free world - for at least the next four years, I won't shy from saying it. I am, when all is said and done, an equal opportunities bastard, and always have been.
My eyes are however drawn to the story of her killing the family dog, (not doge) so that is not going to win her any points with me, but we'll see what the story is when I get there. Right now I'm reading she worked hard and knuckled down, however as usual the masks slips and the true Republican face snarls out. An advocate for increased gun rights, wanted to ban abortion not just in her state but all over the USA, supports offshore oil drilling and apparently doesn't think pollution is such a bad thing, as she blocked the EPA from tightening its controls over coarse particulates, whatever the fuck they are.
She opposes, you'll be simply amazed to hear, Obamacare (gone from day one I would imagine now), hates immigrants (what self-respecting (!) Republican does not?) and thinks stem-cell research is the work of the devil probably. She certainly wants to cut back spending for Veterans (losers or suckers, depending on which of his alleged quotes you wish to use), infrastructure like high-speed rail projects (probably afraid the voters might run her out of town on one) and of course, that old chestnut, the natural enemy of all members of the GOP, that bothersome environment that keeps getting in the way of them making even more money.
She's also against protests, actually enacting legislation to ban or curtail it (obviously only when it doesn't suit her agenda) and characterising it as incitement to riot, is no friend to Native American or other indigenous, First Nation peoples, and is of course not in the least above using her position as governor (and now presumably as DHS Secretary) to benefit her family and skew the law onto their side. Another perfect nomination, then.
Oh, and that story about her killing her dog? As bad as it sounds, and if you're an animal lover like me I don't recommend you read it. Horrible, horrible person.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZ-xf--Zj9B6e9QMDFp3tWeIJUxnUIhNr_PXYwEzT2g6AIejHHkx-g8lGUoyEyjLhjsK0&usqp=CAU)
More tomorrow!
Fuck Homan.
He basically said oh you don't have to worry about children being separated from their parents. Gonna deport them all together.
Also another thing to note is that these nominations are not final until the Senate approves them. Not all nominations will be approved. Some for certain like Marco Rubio will but I'm sure some of the others won't be.
@DJChameleonDo you oppose deporting illegal immigrants and if not, what's the limit before you'd say enough?
You should make all of those pics & bio's into a deck of trading cards.
Here's the wild card for your deck...
(https://i.postimg.cc/SszYV4xt/MG.jpg)
Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz for Attorney General.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Nov 14, 2024, 03:10 PM@DJChameleon
Do you oppose deporting illegal immigrants and if not, what's the limit before you'd say enough?
No I don't but there needs to be immigration reform across the board and some of the immigrants that should be here are going to get swept up in this mass deportation madness.
People that are gonna get deported are those that came to this country and married someone from the states to get citizenship. They are going to get sent packing. There is even talk about sending back the parents of children born in the states. The children are now citizens but their parents have to go but Homan is like well everyone needs to gtfo. The US was built off the back of migrants that's why we have the statue of liberty. Migrants that have come here willingly and against their will(slaves).
There is so much room in the states to take in asylum seekers but what the politicians purposely did was focused on sending them to specific locations to overcrowd the area and make people become more xenophobic like all the migrants that were bussed from Texas to NYC.
Migrants also help the economy when they are allowed to work. There is a stupid rule that Asylum Seekers aren't allowed to work. NY state had to pass their own laws to give them the ability to do that because it's not being done federally which it needs to be done.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Nov 14, 2024, 04:50 PMNo I don't but there needs to be immigration reform across the board and some of the immigrants that should be here are going to get swept up in this mass deportation madness.
People that are gonna get deported are those that came to this country and married someone from the states to get citizenship. They are going to get sent packing. There is even talk about sending back the parents of children born in the states. The children are now citizens but their parents have to go but Homan is like well everyone needs to gtfo. The US was built off the back of migrants that's why we have the statue of liberty. Migrants that have come here willingly and against their will(slaves).
There is so much room in the states to take in asylum seekers but what the politicians purposely did was focused on sending them to specific locations to overcrowd the area and make people become more xenophobic like all the migrants that were bussed from Texas to NYC.
Migrants also help the economy when they are allowed to work. There is a stupid rule that Asylum Seekers aren't allowed to work. NY state had to pass their own laws to give them the ability to do that because it's not being done federally which it needs to be done.
How do you know that was done on purpose for that reason? Maybe it was just where housing was available or where it was cheapest and where the most opportunities are?
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Nov 14, 2024, 03:27 AMThanks for giving us a run down on these guys' CVs, Trollheart. They make depressing reading, but I think it's a valuable service to have this info easily available. As a reward, you'll now get to dig into Matt Gaetz' insalbrious past: hasn't he just been chosen as Attorney General ?!
Ah well, luckily for me my constant research for my many many journals has given me some small skill in being able to sift through Wiki pages and other resources, separate the boring dry facts from the interesting, sometimes amusing, informative and occasionally shocking ones and then add my own spin and comments and my trademark twisted humour to the whole thing, to end up giving you what I hope is not just a retread of what has been written, but something unique.
And yes, of course it's all bad news. Ain't come across a good one yet.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQIet8ETQQI9rVaXrFgL8_lqwsLpeum_CD2oA&s)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Michael_Waltz%2C_official_portrait%2C_116th_Congress_%28cropped%29.jpg/440px-Michael_Waltz%2C_official_portrait%2C_116th_Congress_%28cropped%29.jpg)
Name: Mike Waltz
Age: 50
Position: National Security Advisor
Previous Experience: Member of the House of Representatives; has served in Afghanistan as a Green Beret; holds the rank of colonel in the US Army; has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal; former security advisor to the White House and Pentagon
Historic Interest:
Trump says: "Mike has been a strong champion of my America First Foreign Policy Agenda and will be a tremendous champion of our pursuit of Peace through Strength."
On the face of it, I guess you'd have to admire the guy, or at least give him credit. He certainly fought for his country (what you think about the justification for those various wars, or the idea of military service in general, will of course colour your perception of that) and received no less than four medals for bravery. He also appears to have been against the Obama-led withdrawal from Afghanistan, saying "So, are we 15 years in? Yes. Are we in for a lot more fighting, and do we need a long-term strategy to undermine the ideology of Islamic extremism—just like we did fascism and just like we did communism? Yes, we do. Uh, and you know, I think we're in for a long haul, and I think our nation's leadership needs to begin telling the American people, 'I'm sorry, we don't have a choice; we're 15 years into what is going to be a multi-generational war because we're talking about defeating an idea.' It's easy to bomb a tank; very difficult to defeat an idea, and that's exactly what we have to do."
He's no friend of China's, and seems genuinely shocked at their human rights abuses, and has pioneered legislation to ensure no university or college receives funding from China, with the possibility of anyone doing so being fired. It says he was the counterterrorism advisor to "the vice president", but doesn't make clear which one? Since he appears to have served in the House since 2019, presumably we're talking about Pence here? Not sure. He was also on Trump's Covid-19 Task Force, and perhaps rather embarrassingly for such a position tested positive for the virus. No surprise, of course, the way the administration tried to pretend Covid did not exist or was at best a nuisance not worth bothering about.
He of course supported the false contention that Trump won in 2020, and refused to endorse Biden's American Rescue Plan Act, as well as the January 6 Commission. To be fair though, it is hard to argue with his contention that the US withdrew from Afghanistan too soon (though his idea that troops could be there for, um, 100 years, seems a little excessive: talk about your multi-generational wars!), as we've seen what happened there once the Taliban got back into power. A flip-flopper it would seem, he initially supported Ukraine but must have seen which way the east wind was blowing and switched allegiances to tie in with der Fuehrer's orders.
He has at least voted against the right of ICE to detain and remove immigrant children from their parents, but then he's no friend of the LGBTQ community, voting to codify marriage as being between a man and a woman only. Oh no wait, I'm wrong there: he actually voted for the Right to Marriage Act, which proposes that anyone can marry, regardless of gender. Okay then, Trollheart gets it wrong once again. DO NOT stop the presses, this is not news. Yeah but he voted against the PACT Act, which aims to help veterans, and also against the legalisation of cannabis.
His wife also served as homeland security advisor to Trump, and in addition served in the administrations of Bush and Obama and is a combat veteran herself. I have to say, again on the face of it, while he's no angel Waltz seems the best of a bad lot here. Feel free to educate me, my American friends.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Nov 14, 2024, 06:39 PMHow do you know that was done on purpose for that reason? Maybe it was just where housing was available or where it was cheapest and where the most opportunities are?
It was done that way on purpose because Texas is Republican and they wanted to be cunts towards NYC so they sent them there by the bus loads to overwhelm their system. NYC claims to be a sanctuary city so they purposely did it just purely for political spiteful reasons and that's it.
Housing in general is cheaper in the south where Texas is. NYC had to convert hotels into shelters and makeshift housing with cots from like school gyms and even outdoor space on Randall Island. It's kind of been a shit show and the Mayor and Governor has been trying to get federal funds to help out with the influx and also the stupid work requirement thing being in place.
It's not just the price of housing on its own its also opportunities. It's no good living somewhere where there are no jobs or public services. That's why they tend to go to big cities.
So would you say then that NY shouldn't be taking any more immigrants?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Pete_Hegseth_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg/440px-Pete_Hegseth_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg)
Name: Pete Hegseth
Age: 44
Position: Secretary of Defence
Previous Experience: None; combat experience yes, but has never been in government and only rose to the rank of major while in service.
Historic Interest: Presumably (correct me if I'm wrong) the first to be elected to such a critically important office without a shred of experience, and the first news commentator to be elected to such an office.
Trump says: "[He's] tough, smart and a true believer in America First".
He says: "The dumbest phrase on planet earth in the military is our diversity is our strength."
[People involved in diversity, equality or inclusion policies] ha[ve] "got to go".
"Either you're in for war fighting and that's it, that's the only litmus test we care about."
"Whatever" [combat standards were in 1995], "let's just make those the standards".
Others say: [His appointment would] "make us less safe and must be rejected. A Fox & Friends weekend co-host is not qualified to be the Secretary of Defense.I lead the Senate military personnel panel. All three of my brothers served in uniform. I respect every one of our servicemembers." (Senator Elizabeth Warren)
[the job] "should not be an entry-level position". (Adam Smith, House Armed Services Committee)
It's probably no surprise - though the Looney Tunes theme does play in my head and can't be ignored - that Trump would appoint of of his fawning acolytes from Fox News, the channel (let's not dignify them by calling them a news outlet, more like the propaganda arm of the Republican Party) that rubberstamped every word that came out of his, um, well let's say mouth, and turned it into fact, even if there was not a shred of evidence to support that. Trump rewards his followers and punishes those who oppose him, and that's just Trump.
What is incredibly shocking though is that a man who has never had any government experience is being handed the top job at the Department of Defence, the responsibility being put on his shoulders for current and future wars, military expenditure, and the future of America's defence programme. He's had, to be fair, extensive military experience (though much of that was with the National Guard and took place at Guantanamo Bay), and has been decorated several times. He set up and ran a PAC (Political Action Committee) but seems to have spent a large portion of the funds on himself and his family.
He volunteered to be in the National Guard unit assigned to protect the inauguration of Biden, but was removed when it appeared he was actually there to infiltrate the unit, and perhaps, well, who knows what he might have done? He denies such allegations of course. He advocated for, and got, pardon for three US war criminals, accused the Democrats of weaponising Covid, is against the teaching of critical race theory and climate change, and has advocated the bombing of Iran, something, as Secretary of Defence, and with Trump in the chair, he can now do come January. He also wants to fire all "woke" officers; however that gets defined, he will have the power to do that, too. God help America, is all I can say.
(https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MjAzMTI2MTMyMjk0NTU5Mjk5/simpsons-predictions-for-is-insane.jpg)
Still to come...
Mike Huckabee, Steve Witkoff, William McGinley, Elise Stefanik, Stephen Miller, Dan Scavino, Tulsi Gabbard, Marco Rubio and more unhinged WTF? appointments than you can shake a "Stop the Steal" sign at. Oh, and Matt Gaetz.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Nov 14, 2024, 08:27 PMIt's not just the price of housing on its own its also opportunities. It's no good living somewhere where there are no jobs or public services. That's why they tend to go to big cities.
So would you say then that NY shouldn't be taking any more immigrants?
NYC took in its fair share. They could definitely be spread throughout the country. US is huge and there are plenty of other big cities that could take in some. Public services are everywhere so that's a shit excuse and the job situation is kind of a moot point since federally they aren't allowing asylum seekers to work when they should.
Well yes public services 'exist' throughout but bigger cities have the infrastructure to support larger populations better than rural areas. Not as excuse at all.
Job situation isn't a moot point. They might not be able to work now, but maybe in the future they could. So they'd obviously want to be where there are jobs. Is there even much illegal work outside of the big cities? What's the gig economy like?
You probably don't know this but there are big cities in Texas it's not all rural space. There are big cities littered across the US that could have also taken in some.
The type of jobs that they end up taking are more popular in rural areas. Migrant farmers and construction are big in rural areas.
I'm intrigued and concerned. Who organised the "moving" of these migrants to New York? Did Texas just decide, yiz're goin' and that's it and yes this shotgun is loaded why do you ask? Did NY have to agree, or did they all just turn up on their doorstep one fine morning? Probably sounds stupid what I'm asking, but I'm just trying to understand it.
I know there are big cities in Texas mate, we learn geography in Europe.
I'd imagine there is a shit load of construction in NY also. As well as the gig work and shit like that.
So would you say you want immigrants then, just not where you live?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/John_Ratcliffe_official_photo.jpg/440px-John_Ratcliffe_official_photo.jpg)
Name: John Ratcliffe
Age: 59
Position: Director CIA
Previous Experience: Former Director of National Intelligence; Member of the House of Representatives (look in future I'm just putting Member of the House, ok? I keep misspelling Rrpe - Reperse - that word and it's a pain in the arse); Mayor of Heath, Texas; State Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas
Historic Interest: First appointee I've come across who seems to at least have the required experience.
Trump says: "[he]has always been a warrior for Truth and Honesty with the American public".
Down to replace the former DNI, Ratcliffe had to withdraw due to bad publicity and the belief he would "politicise intelligence", but Trump tried again and this time succeeded in nominating, and appointing him as the Director. Once in the post, it seems he did exactly as had been feared, punishing officials under him who did not fall into line with his view, making claims that contradicted the intelligence community, and basically being a Trump suck-up who thinks the truth is negotiable and fluid. Which, considering what El Jaffa sorry Jefe, no I was right the first time said about him above, is ironic.
His claims that he "personally managed dozens of international and domestic terrorism investigations involving some of the nation's most sensitive security matters" and "put terrorists in prison" have no basis in reality and there is no proof he was ever involved in prosecuting any terrorism-related cases; he bigged himself up about how many illegal aliens he had arrested in a single day (300 became less than 45) and was about bitching and whining about putting Hilary in jail, never mind the lack of evidence of any crime. He also asserted, weirdly, that any alleged interference in Trump's 2016 election would have helped her more than him! It must be nice/terrifying to live in this alternate world Republicans spend so much of their time in.
He even managed to perform quite an unbelievable spin, turning a (possibly Republican-initiated) email threat to "vote for Trump or we will come after you" in 2020 into an attack by Democrats that would "harm President Trump"! Work that one out. No, I won't wait: time is running out for me. I don't have that long. He's a Chinaphobe, supports the deportation of illegal immigrants, and opposes net neutrality. What? Oh, look it up: I've dozens of these bozos to research, and that fat bastard is appointing more every hour it seems. Like trying to empty the fucking ocean with a teaspoon. With holes in it.
Well, I can't figure these appointments out.
(https://media.tenor.com/Fkp8ZozrUc0AAAAe/can-you-simpsons.png)
I've just added the "Trump says" category to the profiles, as I think it's important to know what, if anything, is or was going through what we may kindly and generously refer to as the Big Orange's brain when he made these appointments. I've back-edited them in on all the other profiles.
I also intend to feature reaction, if possible from both sides but primarily either from Republicans and/or those already involved in the specific department as to what they think. I believe that may give us a slightly more balanced view (if anything about these appoinments/rewards for obedience can be characterised as balanced) as to what the general feeling is. That will take time, so I'll add them in as I get them. Taking a short break for now: there's only so many smug, smarmy, arrogant cunts you can look at before you need a cup of tea and a lie down.
You best not delay too much Trolls, Trump's picks are rollin' in!
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1857170020427595797
https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1857198805919138235
Quote from: Trollheart on Nov 14, 2024, 10:30 PMI'm intrigued and concerned. Who organised the "moving" of these migrants to New York? Did Texas just decide, yiz're goin' and that's it and yes this shotgun is loaded why do you ask? Did NY have to agree, or did they all just turn up on their doorstep one fine morning? Probably sounds stupid what I'm asking, but I'm just trying to understand it.
Greg Abbott the governor of Texas decided to do this move to stick it to NYC because back in 2016 NYC declared itself a sanctuary city which only meant that they weren't going to willingly work with ICE(Immigration Customs Enforcement). NY didn't have a chance to agree but they weren't going to turn them away which I agree with they shouldn't.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Nov 14, 2024, 10:36 PMI know there are big cities in Texas mate, we learn geography in Europe.
I'd imagine there is a shit load of construction in NY also. As well as the gig work and shit like that.
So would you say you want immigrants then, just not where you live?
I'm fine with immigrants being where I live I don't mind it at all. If I could personally welcome them into my own house I would. You aren't going to catch me in some gotcha moment. I know what you are doing JJ.
I also realize that NYC is running out of resources and space to take in immigrants because so many have been sent there over the course of a year and a half. There were companies that benefitted from taking them in but realistically if NYC isn't getting funds federally to help and the federal government isn't working with NYC to give the asylum seekers working permits so they can contribute to the system that's an issue. I've personally talked to some of the migrants because three busses were sent up to my city and I stood outside the hotel they were arriving at to welcome them as opposed to the xenophobic assholes that were cursing and honking their horns as they passed by the hotel. These migrants want to work. They come from countries where they were doctors, lawyers, accountants and they hate that they aren't allowed to work here in the states even if they weren't able to work as their old profession.
I wasn't asking if you'd treat them negatively personally. But when you say your area is overcrowded and you've took in your fair share, sounds a bit NIMBY.
Quote from: SGR on Nov 15, 2024, 12:10 AMYou best not delay too much Trolls, Trump's picks are rollin' in!
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1857170020427595797
https://x.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1857198805919138235
Oh fuck tell me about it. Every time I check the BBC webpage there's another trud dropped in the toilet! But hey, it's not like I have a time limit or am working to any sort of deadline here. Nothing happens till January, and while I obviously want to write a lot more and hope this thread will certainly be more than "this asshole fits this job", I do want to make it as comprehensive as possible, so I'm working on it. But it's exhausting and it depresses you after a while.
Looking now, I see, um, 20 appointments, and I've done so far 8. So that leaves... let's see.. maths was never my strong suit, as I said... um... oh wow. 308! No, no that can't be right. Let's see... carry the one, divide by six, adjust for inflation... 1,200! No damn it! Well, whatever it is, it's a lot, and I know it's getting more all the time. I'll be doing this all day tomorrow no doubt.
As someone on another forum said, tuck Frump!
(https://i.abcnewsfe.com/a/f8bd160b-6229-498f-94c5-1b374850ab51/budowich-abc-ps-230607_1686169555816_hpMain_16x9.jpg?w=1500)
Name: Taylor Budowich
Age: 27
Position: Deputy Chief of Staff
Previous Experience: Executive director of the Tea Party Express, a Republican PAC; founder of MAGA Inc., another one; spokesman for Trump in the previous administration
Historic Interest:
Trump says: Don't know
He/she says: "Today, in what can only be described as a bogus and deeply troubling effort to use the power of government to 'get' Trump, I fulfilled a legal obligation to testify in front a federal grand jury and I answered every question honestly. America has become a sick and broken nation—a decline led by Joe Biden and power hungry Democrats. I will not be intimidated by this weaponization of government. For me, the need to unite our nation and make America great again has never been more clear than it is today.That starts with re-electing President Donald J. Trump, a purpose I will not be deterred from pursuing."
(The above comes from 2023, as Budowich went in to testify in the "classified documents" case)
Others say: Nobody seems to care.
So far, definitely the youngest member of Trump's cabinet I've read about. Another fanatical follower of the Big O, he fiercely defended his master's accusation of stoking the flames that led to the January 6 insurrection riots, and was involved in at least three major PACs - Maga Inc., Tea Party Express and Save America. There's not much current information on him, but I do find it curious that one of the few sources quotes on his profile that he graduated from "a reputable university". I mean, why not name the university? Sounds a bit odd. That's all I got.
(https://theaapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Blair_James_sml.jpg)
Name: James Blair
Age: Unknown
Position: Deputy Chief of Staff (wait, what?)
Previous Experience: Involved with the RNC; one of Trump's campaign directors
Historic Interest:
Trump says: "Dan [Scavino], Stephen [Miller], James, and Taylor [Budowich] were 'best in class' advisors on my winning campaign, and I know they will honorably serve the American people in the White House. They will continue to work hard to Make America Great Again in their respective new roles."
He/she says: Can't find any quotes
Others say: Nobody cares
Right, let's sort this out. I don't know if this is normally done in presidential cabinets (but since when did Trump respect or follow precedent?) but it looks as if the role of Deputy Chief of Staff is being split between no less than four people. SGR or DJ or someone can let me know if this is normal: I don't think it is, but I may be wrong. So Budowich, featured above, will be in charge of communications and personnel, while this fucker will be looking after legislative, political and public affairs. Right.
Blair was the "genius" behind one of Trump's big campaign questions to voters, "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" He also seems to have come up with the slogan "Trump can fix it", which, if American voters knew anything about the original usage of that phrase, would perhaps not have gone down as well as it did. It looks like he was also involved with the RNC, the Republican National Committee.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Dan_Scavino_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg/440px-Dan_Scavino_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg)
Name: Dan Scavino
Age: 48
Position: Deputy Chief of Staff (another one)
Previous Experience: Deputy Chief of Staff; Director of Social Media
Historic Interest: Longest-serving member of the Trump administration
Trump says: As above - seems the four of them being squashed into one post (not literally, unfortunately) means their boss lumps them all together in his comments. Aw.
He/she says: Probably "Jawohl, mein fuhrer!"
Others say: Who?
Well, I guess if you're going to give a top-level job to someone, you have to make sure they have the credentials and experience so that... sorry, sorry. Just slipped through that dimensional rift that's just outside my bedroom door again, into a world of sanity and logic. Now, where was I? Oh yeah. In Trumpworld, you appoint people based on how much they supported you and how far their tongue was up your arse. This guy's entire political career spans a staggering ten years (!) almost. Prior to being selected by Trump he was working for Coca Cola (always) and then ran the Big Orange's Winchester Golf Club, so good training for a post in the White House. Well, given how long the former president spent in his first administration on the green, maybe.
At least, as head of Trump's Social Media team, he was able to present a fair and unbiased picture of the president's opp - ah, sorry. I just can't keep a straight face. One of the original, I think, disseminators of misinformation, disinformation and outright lies, he used Twitter and Facebook to twist and corrupt anything he could in order to make his boss look good, or his boss's enemies look bad. He was held in contempt after his refusal to answer a subpoena to appear in court and testify in the January 6 investigation.
Biden currently has three deputy Chiefs of Staff. It's normal to have a few of them with duties split up between them.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Stephen_Miller_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg/440px-Stephen_Miller_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg)
Name: Stephen Miller
Age: 39
Position: Deputy Chief of... well, you know by now how it goes. Also Homeland Security advisor
Previous Experience: Communications Director for Senator Jeff Sessions; press secretary for two House Representatives; speechwriter in the Trump administration
Historic Interest: Possibly the most right-wing, nationalist, white supremacist, xenophobic member of Trump's cabinet. And as you can imagine, that's really saying something.
Trump says: See above
He/she says: [the judiciary has] "taken far too much power and become, in many cases, a supreme branch of government ... Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned." (2017, in response to the blocking of Trump's proposed travel ban)
"The president is a political genius... who took down the Bush dynasty, who took down the Clinton dynasty, who took down the entire media complex". (2018)
Others say: [Miller]"seemed to assume that if you were in disagreement with him, there was something malevolent or stupid about your thinking—incredibly intolerant." - former senior vice president of Duke University, John Burness
"I have watched with dismay and increasing horror as my nephew, an educated man who is well aware of his heritage, has become the architect of immigration policies that repudiate the very foundation of our family's life in this country." David S. Glosser, Miller;s uncle, in 2018
[his attitude shows] "an absurd lack of appreciation for the separation of powers" [set forth in the Constitution] - Cornell Law School Professor Jen David Ohlinn, 2017
Now I don't want to be cruel (yes I do) but doesn't he look like another famous propagandist popular in the 20th century? Just put him in a Nazi uniform, thundering the question "Do you want total war?" and I think it would be hard to tell them apart. This ignorant cunt was apparently on the same page as Tom "I hate immigrants" Homan, another of the architects of the heinous procedure of separating immigrant children from their parents, and he also suppressed a report that showed that in fact immigrants had a net positive impact on the German sorry I mean US economy. Reminds me of the Nazis hiding the report that showed that, contrary to what they wanted the people to believe, there were more Jews serving in the front lines in World War II than expected.
An avid conspiracy theorist and white supremacist, he forced the resignation of the previous Secretary of Homeland Security, convincing der fuhrer that she was not tough enough on immigrants, and spread lies about the 2020 election having been stolen. He drafted much of the legislation that prevented or restricted entry for Muslims into the USA during Trump's time, and was instrumental in having FBI Director James Comey fired.
His own uncle called Miller a hypocrite, pointing out that the family were themselves of migrant stock, having come to the USA from Belarus. Miller also advised his boss not to endorse masking up in the face, literally, of Covid-19, and therefore must bear some, indeed much of the blame for the one million Americans who died basically ignoring the virus. He also had the crazy - and expensive - idea of using the US Army to seal the border with Mexico. This was shot down. Sorry. He was also behind the attempt to send "alternate electors" to Congress, in the hopes of overturning Biden's election win in 2020. As speechwriter, he wrote and prepared "that speech", the one Trump gave on January 6 which resulted in a mob descending on the Capitol building in what was nothing less than an attempt at insurrection and the overthrow of democracy.
(https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims3/default/strip/false/crop/3618x2741+0+0/resize/1100/quality/85/format/webp/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnpr-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F15%2F3d%2F2481ff2c4c13b34e3ffb96471e12%2Fgettyimages-99620523.jpg)
Name: William McGinley
Age: Unknown
Position: White House Counsel
Previous Experience: Deputy General Counsel to the RNC; Cabinet Secretary
Historic Interest:
Trump says: "Bill is a smart and tenacious lawyer who will help me advance our America First agenda while fighting for election integrity and against the weaponization of law enforcement."
He/she says: Dunno, but probably something carefully written to protect him from any kind of legal action, or giving a straight answer
Others say: Just what we need: another poxy lawyer!
Ah what can you say about lawyers? They're all fucking boring and the same. Can't find much out about McGinley, and much of the reason for this is, I think, because when I input his name Google helpfully asks me if I mean McKinley? No, I do NOT want to read about the former US fucking president, Google you cunt! So there are few entries on him, but that may also be due to the fact that there isn't all that much very interesting to read about him.
Like I said: fucking lawyers.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Steve_Witkoff_at_White_House_Opioids_Summit_2018_%28cropped%29.png/440px-Steve_Witkoff_at_White_House_Opioids_Summit_2018_%28cropped%29.png)
Name: Steve Witkoff
Age: 67
Position: Special Envoy to the Middle East
Previous Experience: Fuck all
Historic Interest:
Trump says: "Steve will be an unrelenting Voice for PEACE, and make us all proud."
He/she says:
Others say: "These appointments are all Palestinians should need to understand what is coming their way," - Nour Odeh, Palestinian political analyst
Jesus Christ processing a third recount in Georgia! If I can't find much to write about a lawyer, there's even less to tell you about this guy, who has literally NO political experience, is a real-estate developer and golf buddy of Trump, and that, my friends, is fucking it! What qualifies him to be any sort of an ambassador, least of all to one of the most volatile regions on the planet? Ya got me there, son.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Mike_Huckabee_by_Gage_Skidmore_6.jpg/440px-Mike_Huckabee_by_Gage_Skidmore_6.jpg)
Name: Mike Huckabee
Age: 69
Position: Ambassador to Israel
Previous Experience: Governor of Arkansas;
Historic Interest:
Trump says: "Mike will bring peace to the Middle East"
He/she says: "I won't make the policy; I will carry out the policy of the president."
"There is no such thing as a West Bank. There's no such thing as a settlement — they are communities, they're neighborhoods, they're cities. There's no such thing as an occupation."
"There's really no such thing as a Palestinian"
"My experience dealing every day with real people who were genuinely affected by policies created by government gave me a deep understanding of the fragility of the human spirit and vulnerability of so many families who struggled from week to week. I was in the ICU at 2 a.m. with families faced with the decision to disconnect a respirator on their loved one; I counseled fifteen-year-old pregnant girls who were afraid to tell their parents about their condition; I spent hours hearing the grief of women who had been physically and emotionally clobbered by an abusive husband; I saw the anguish in the faces of an elderly couple when their declining health forced them to sell their home, give up their independence, and move into a long-term-care facility; I listened to countless young couples pour out their souls as they struggled to get their marriages into survival mode when confronted with overextended debt ..." (1980s)
"The doors to my office were spitefully nailed shut from the inside, office furniture and equipment were removed, and the budget spent down to almost nothing prior to our arriving. After fifty-nine days of public outcry, the doors were finally opened for me to occupy the actual office I had been elected to hold two months earlier." (On his election as Governor of Arkansas)
"I will not participate in any program that has racist overtones. I've spent a lifetime fighting [against] racism and anti-Semitism." (1994, about the Southern Poverty Law Center)
"I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ." (1998)
"I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, is very different than the average American." (2011, of Obama)
[it would] "most certainly" [be a good day for America if Roe v. Wade were reversed by the Supreme Court] (2008)
"This [gay marriage] is not just a political issue. It is a biblical issue. And as a biblical issue—unless I get a new version of the scriptures, it's really not my place to say, OK, I'm just going to evolve[.] ... It's like asking someone who's Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli. We don't want to do that—I mean, we're not going to do that. Or like asking a Muslim to serve up something that is offensive to him, or to have dogs in his backyard[.] ... We're so sensitive to make sure we don't offend certain religions, but then we act like Christians can't have the convictions that they've had for 2,000 years." (2007)
"it's unfortunate we glorify and glamorize the idea of out-of-wedlock children." (2011, about Natalie Portman)
"Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government." (2014 - "Uncle Sugar" doesn't refer to the British business mogul but instead is a reference to the welfare state)
"I think that students also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism." (2004)
"I almost wish that there would be a simultaneous telecast and all Americans would be forced, at gunpoint, to listen to every [Christian revisionist author] David Barton message." (2011)
"We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?" (2012, after Sandy Hook)
"Fire the ones who refuse to hear not only our hearts, but God's heart." (2014)
"Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren't fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?"[ (2015)
"Right now, we spend about 3.9 percent of our GDP on defense, compared with about six percent in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. We need to return to that six percent level."[ (2007)
Others say: "His convictions shape his character and his character will shape his policies. His whole life has been shaped by moral absolutes." Televangelist James Robinson, 1997
"The mask is off," [Mr. Huckabee's appointment] "is further proof that 'pro-Israel' for Trump is totally disconnected from Jewish values, safety or self-determination." - J Street, pro-Israel liberal group
[I look forward to working with Mr. Huckabee on]"the unquestionable historical belonging of the whole land of Israel to the people of Israel." - Bezalel Smotrich, Israeli finance minister
"Huckabee has approached his state's troubles with energy and innovation" [and is] "a mature, consensus-building conservative who earns praise from fellow Evangelicals and, occasionally, liberal Democrats." Time Magazine, 2005
And who better to appoint as your ambassador to what is all but now a terror state than a man who believes that "there is no such thing as a Palestinian"? Read it: it's quoted above. I suppose at least this arsewipe has some political experience, having been governor of Bill Clinton's beloved Arkansas, but I do find it odd that he's a Baptist minister and yet holds such pro-Jewish views. I'm no expert on religion, but aren't Baptists fiercely Christian, and aren't Christians taught to hate, or at best mistrust Jews? Another example, I suppose, of the dichotomies within American politics, particularly the forthcoming administration.
Palestinians won't be looking forward to his visits, and any slim chance there might have been of raising some actual condemnation for the war crimes and crimes against humanity that Israel has been perpetrating pretty much unopposed for over a year now has vanished, both with Trump's ascendancy and the appointment of Huckabee, another Israeli apologist, and NO I AM NOT BEING FUCKING ANTI-SEMITIST! I'm just reporting the facts as they are. Speaking of facts, during his time as governor of Arkansas, Huckabee turned down a staggering 92% of appeals for clemency from prisoners, more executions took place in his tenure but he pardoned or commuted the sentences over over 1,000 prisoners, twice as many as the last three governors combined.
Yes but from what I read, and admittedly it's a long account and I'm tired and may have missed some points, Huckabee paroled a rapist who had been given a life sentence for raping a young girl. The fact that she was distantly related to Bill Clinton, and Huckabee a committed Republican, may have factored into that decision, though of course I can't say for sure. He opposes all the usual things - same-sex marriages, abortion, immigration, Obamacare etc. He also has a problem with unmarried women having children, as you can see from his quotes above.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Elise_Stefanik%2C_115th_official_photo.jpg/440px-Elise_Stefanik%2C_115th_official_photo.jpg)
Name: Elise Stefanik
Age: 40
Position: UN Ambassador
Previous Experience: Chair of the House Republican Conference; Member of the House
Historic Interest:
Trump says: "I am honored to nominate Chairwoman Elise Stefanik to serve in my Cabinet as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Elise is an incredibly strong, tough, and smart America First fighter."
She says: "I am truly honored to earn President Trump's nomination to serve in his Cabinet as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. During my conversation with President Trump, I shared how deeply humbled I am to accept his nomination and that I look forward to earning the support of my colleagues in the United States Senate."
"President Trump is the leader that [Republican voters] look to." (2021)
[Trump is the]"strongest supporter of any president when it comes to standing up for the Constitution."(2021)
"More than 140,000 votes came from underage, deceased, and otherwise unauthorized voters" [n Fulton County, Georgia] (2021)
[Nancy Pelosi was] "aware of potential security threats to the Capitol and she failed to act." (2021)
[Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement ]"harms the ongoing effort to fight climate change, while also isolating us from our allies".(2017)
Others say: Can't find any reaction.
You can see a pattern emerging here, as if nobody expected such a thing to happen: most, if not all, of Trump's appointees are essentially swearing allegiance not only to him (and, possibly though not for certain, the American Constitution) but to Israel as well. Another who supports them, Stefanik has already backpedalled on two important views she held, that of pushing for NATO membership for Ukraine, which she had once described as "vital for stability in the region" and the characterisation of Putin's attacks against them as being genocide. Each of these new posts is being filled either with foaming-at-the-mouth radical Trump followers who will only get worse, or ones who are prepared to ditch all their principles (yeah I suppose Republicans can have principles. After all, they're human too, aren't they? Aren't they?) in order to fall into line with what their new boss wants.
Stefanik has already taken college professors to task over their refusal to "root out anti-Semitism" in their schools, resulting in the resignation of three of them, and received the Zionist Order of America's highest award, the Defender of Israel for her work. She also, rather weirdly and of course without a shred of evidence, tried to blame Nancy Pelosi for the January 6 attack on the Capitol. She naturally supported the view that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen, and of of her heroes is Maggie Thatcher, god help us.
There's no point in my repeating the usual: she was against vaccine/mask mandates, is against abortion, supported the baseless claims about the election being stolen yadda yadda yadda. I don't think you're going to find one of these appointees who doesn't hold the same views. So what else can I tell you about her? As you can see from the quotes above, she actually went against Trump when he withdrew America from the Paris Agreement, but also advanced the idea of expunging her beloved president's two impeachments from the record - so a bit of revisionist history in the making there - and co-sponsored a bill which would require employees to undergo genetic testing by their employers or risk huge fines. Wait, what? Sounds like a certain country in Europe popular during the 1930s! Genetic fucking testing? Look it up: I'm not joking. I only wish I were. I'm not sure if the bill passed; it doesn't say.
At least she likes kids, sponsoring the Championing Healthy Kids Act, and though she opposed Trump on the Executive Order banning travel to the US from Muslim countries, she hedged on the idea of separating immigrant children from their families, neither approving nor condemning it, but later picking the splinters out of her arse after having sat on the fence too long about it. She changed her mind about supporting DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, also called Dreamers) and voted against it in 2021 at the behest of her new master, and the next year accused the Biden administration of prioritising the supply of infant formula to the children of immigrants over American citizens. So only Some Children Left Behind, eh Elise? Right, that's enough time spent on this woman. I have other hatemongers to write about, sadly. A seemingly never-ending stream of them. I need a shower.
End of an era (the anthropocene specifically)
Sen. John Fetterman calls Rep. Matt Gaetz AG nomination 'God-tier' level of trolling to 'own libs'
Could someone cleverer than me (i.e., 99.9% of you) explain how it is that Trump is so supportive of Israel and yet also manages to successfully court the right, most of whom are white supremacist neo-Nazis who hate the Jews? Isn't that an almost fundamental difference, almost a massive conflict of interest? How do you resolve that? I'm remembering specifically the "Vaxx the Jews" signs (and we all know what they meant) - if Trump in power doesn't speak out against/clamp down on such sentiments, surely NetanGoogle is going to accuse him of being anti-Semetic? Yet he can't really, as he's empowered and released these cunts into the wild.
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/tZ6zAdNZbWOhq/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952gcsb9z93n7zj0ytk1n5g9lrancm7shgofv1vc0us&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
It's because the Neo Nazis are really a smaller portion of MAGA populist movement than people think. They also have low educational threshold and they can explain away anything Trump does. Similar to blind cultists.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Tulsi_Gabbard_%2853807900722%29_%28cropped%29.jpg/440px-Tulsi_Gabbard_%2853807900722%29_%28cropped%29.jpg)
Name: Tulsi Gabbard
Age: 43
Position: Director of National Intelligence
Previous Experience: Member of the House; Lieutenant Colonel in the Army
Historic Interest: The only (?) appointee to have been previously a Democrat
Trump says: [He praised her for fighting] "for our Country and the freedoms of all Americans. As a former Candidate for the Democrat Presidential Nomination, she has broad support in both Parties – she is now a proud Republican! I know Tulsi will bring the fearless spirit that has defined her illustrious career to our Intelligence Community, championing our Constitutional Rights, and securing Peace through Strength. Tulsi will make us all proud!"
She says: "If there's a way I can help achieve the goal of preventing world war three and nuclear war? Of course. But again, President Trump will make his decision."
[The Biden administration] "has us facing multiple wars on multiple fronts in regions around the world and closer to the brink of nuclear war than we ever have been before. This is one of the main reasons why I'm committed to doing all that I can to send President Trump back to the White House, where he can once again serve us as our commander-in-chief, because I am confident that his first task will be to do the work to walk us back from the brink of war."
"The war [by Russian on Ukraine] could have been prevented if had the US and its Western allies had recognised Russia's "legitimate security concerns" about Ukraine's bid to join Nato" (2022)
[It was an] "undeniable fact" [that there were US-funded biolabs in Ukraine that could] "release and spread deadly pathogens." (2022)
[She was] "sceptical" his [Assad]regime was behind a chemical weapons attack which killed dozens of people. (2017)
[The Democratic Party was] "under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness." (2022)
"Let the Syrian people themselves determine their future, not the United States, not some foreign country." (2017)
"Is our country's national security better off because of Donald Trump's actions and decision [on Iran]? And the answer to that is no." (2020)
[Pro-Palestinian protesters are] "puppets" [of a] "radical Islamist organisation."
[Hamas is a] "threat that needs to be defeated militarily and ideologically". (2024)
"We have to be realists about the threat that continues to exist for the people of Israel. So as long as Hamas is in power, the people of Israel will not be secure and cannot live in peace."
Others say: "We are all reeling." (former, unnamed intelligence officer)
[Gabbard was] "parroting fake Russian propaganda." (Senator Mitt Romney)
"As a former CIA case officer, I saw the men and women of the U.S. intelligence community put their lives on the line every day for this country — and I am appalled at the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to lead DNI. Not only is [Gabbard] ill-prepared and unqualified, but she traffics in conspiracy theories and cozies up to dictators like Bashar-al Assad and Vladimir Putin. As a Member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am deeply concerned about what this nomination portends for our national security. My Republican colleagues with a backbone should speak out." (Former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger)
[She will be] "will be criticised for lack of qualifications. But those are adequate, though not strong. She was on the House Armed Services Committee and served in the military." (Marine Colonel Mark Cancian)
"I brought Colonel Gabbard to meet President Elect Trump in November 2016 for a role in the Administration. It did not work out then, but now we have one of the strongest America First proponents nominated to take charge of an out of control and destructive intelligence community." (Steve Bannon)
How do you characterise someone who switches sides at will? Gabbard was originally a presidential candidate for the Democrats in 2020, then became an independent in 2022 and this year switched allegiances again to the Republican Party. Anyone giving someone like that such a critical top-level role would have to be of at least questionable mentality, right? Enter Trump. Nuff said, as Stan Lee once wrote. I must say, I've never heard before of someone "becoming interested in" a religious idea and then claiming to be of that religion, by which I mean Gabbard was and is not a Hindu but I read that her mother became interested in it and gave her children Hindu names, now she identifies as a Hindu?
More troubling is her having been brought up in a cult called the Science of Identity Foundation, about which I could not be bothered to read (but you're free to, and correct me if I'm wrong) but it is described as "abusive". Gabbard is a rabid anti-Islamist, and an apologist for Putin and his ally Assad, the former of whom she has had meetings with, expressing doubt that he had used chemical weapons against his own people. She served in Iraq and Kuwait and was decorated twice. She lobbied successfully to outlaw same-sex civil partnerships in her native Hawaii, and fought against the legalisation of same-sex marriages there, but she did author a bill to protect children from abuse on military bases. I really don't want to know why such a bill was needed with such specifics.
In 2018 she co-sponsored the No More Presidential Wars Act, which sought to remove the ability of presidents to make war without the approval of Congress, and two years later campaigned for the dropping of charges against whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. That year she announced her intention to run for President, but her attempt failed when she did not receive the backing of the DNC. After leaving the Democratic Party (in what seems, to me, to have been a huff about their not supporting her presidential bid) she was a regular guest on Fox News and often filled in for Tucker Carlson.
(https://media.tenor.com/t1Jz9J2Z_nkAAAAe/star-wars-journey-to-dark-side.png)
Having turned Republican, she was considered to be in the running for Trump's nomination as vice president, but was not chosen. She did support him on his campaigns though, and was nominated as co-chair of his transition team, along with RFKJ. She does, or did (never know how often this woman is going to change her stance when it suits her) support the legalisation of drugs like marijuana, and lobbied for the end of cash bail and private prisons. Her position on immigration is less clear, as this extract from Wiki points out: between 2013 and 2021, Gabbard had also expressed support for an easier path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, increasing skilled immigration, and granting work visas to immigrants. By 2022, she had said she would be open to a proposal for a border wall if experts say it is warranted.
Unlike many of her new colleagues, she supports* the cause of Native Americans, a Green New Deal and renewable energy. Her stance on military intervention is also fluid and subject to change, almost a "have your cake and eat it" idea, as this quote illustrates: She describes herself as a hawk "[w]hen it comes to the war against terrorists", but "when it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I'm a dove." You could say in some ways she talks more like a Democrat than a Republican, though how long that will remain the case is anyone's guess. Her relationship with the truth is just as fluid, as she had no problem advancing wild theories about bioweapons labs existing in Ukraine, without of course any proof. Yet another example of her flip-flopping is her sudden change of heart about Assad, from having tacitly supported, or at least excused him in 2017 to her contention two years later that he was "a brutal dictator just like Saddam." Tulsi, Tulsi! And I thought we were friends..."
Right, again there's more I could write but that's enough about her. Time to move on to a real asshole...
* Did at one time, but her record has shown she is as prone to change in her opinion and who and what she supports as the Irish weather.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Matt_Gaetz_117th_Congress_portrait_%28crop%29.jpg/440px-Matt_Gaetz_117th_Congress_portrait_%28crop%29.jpg)
Name: Matt Gaetz
Age: 42
Position: Attorney General
Previous Experience: Member of the House
Historic Interest: Could this be the first nominee to be picked just as he was about to face sexual abuse charges? And now put in the highest position in the US justice system so that he can expunge any of those charges against him? Talk about weaponising the Department of Justice!
Trump says: "Matt will root out the systemic corruption at the DOJ, and return the department to its true mission of fighting crime and upholding our democracy and constitution,"
He says: "Stuff your sexual assault allegations up your collective arses! I'm in charge now!" (Probably)
[I will] "kill Muslim terrorists and build the wall" (During his congressional campaign in 2016)
"Over at the Department of Justice, he's got Stockholm syndrome, he's (AG Jeff Sessions) become sympathetic with his captors over there in the Deep State." (2018)
On January 7, 2021, after Trump supporters violently broke into the U.S. Capitol, Gaetz falsely blamed antifa for the attack, suggesting that rioters were "masquerading as Trump supporters"
"Now that we clearly see antifa as terrorists, can we hunt them down like we do those in the Middle East?"
"The mob wants to destroy America. We need PATRIOTS who will defend her" (2020, in support of Kyle Rittenhouse)
[Open-carry weapons was a right] "granted not by government but by God." (2015)
"We have a Second Amendment in this country, and I think we have an obligation to use it!" He then said this meant allowing Americans "the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary." (2021)
He said that overweight or unattractive women were unlikely to become pregnant and mocked them for supporting abortion rights, saying, "They're like 5'2", 350 pounds, and they're like, 'Give me my abortions or I'll get up and march and protest.' (2022)
Others say: "Matt Gaetz does not have the character, integrity, judgement or independence to head up this large law enforcement agency that oversees the FBI, anti-trust, the civil division, criminal division - this is a huge agency," (Congresswoman Barbara Comstock)
"The sequence and timing of Mr Gaetz's resignation from the House raises serious questions about the contents of the House Ethics Committee report. Make no mistake: this information could be relevant to the question of Mr Gaetz's confirmation as the next Attorney General of the United States." (Senator Dick Durbin, Senate Judiciary Committee)
"[Gaetz is] one of the brightest individuals I know. Matt Gaetz is going to restore justice to the department of injustice. If we're going to look at someone's body of work, Matt Gaetz has done an incredible job." (Congressman Matt Rosendale)
"I think he has a 0% shot of getting through the Senate" (Rep. Max Miller)
"There will be a lot of questions" [about Gaetz's suitability for the role]. (Senator Susan Collins)
"This was not on my bingo card" [as she says she is] "looking forward to the opportunity to consider somebody that is serious." (Senator Lisa Murkowski)
"Wholly unqualified for the job" - a sentiment that has been repeated by others since the news came in. McCabe says that Gaetz would probably be unable to get hired for a job at the FBI and that by his own statement, has no interest or respect for the work bureau or the Department of Justice (DOJ) does. Describing Gaetz as a "disruptor", McCabe goes on to say he believes Gaetz's nomination is a "clear indication" of Trump's intentions to dismantle both the FBI and the DOJ. Speaking in detail about the complex responsibilities of the attorney general, McCabe says it is "unthinkable" that Gaetz will be able to rise to that role, saying the idea of it "shakes me to my core." (Former FBI Director Robert McCabe)
"If Trump wanted to defibrillate the Justice Department, the Matt Gaetz nomination is the 100,000-volt option." He adds that the nomination may make other nominees "appear less controversial by comparison," but that it will "also serve as a rallying point for a party left in disarray". (Professor Jonathan Turley, George Washington University)
"[He is] one of the most enthusiastic defenders of president Trump on cable news" and a "proud Trump protégé." (Politico)
Aaron Blake of The Washington Post called him one of Congress' "most controversial members", and one who has "unabashedly aligned himself with Trump on basically all things.
[He is] "one of the most pro-gun members to have ever served in the Florida Legislature." (NRA President Marion Hammer)
I don't like judging a book by its cover (though I usually do) but my god if there is a most evil face in the appointees Trump has made, Gaetz wins the prize. He just looks like he would savage your throat out and then continue on as if nothing had happened, doesn't he? And if there's one qualification you need to secure the highest position in law enforcement in the land, that is of course to be under investigation for trafficking a 17-year old girl for sex. Well come on now, who hasn't done that in their time? Narrowly escaping, almost at the eleventh hour, the charges against him (which he will of course instruct his flunkies to drop once he's in power) Gaetz comes to the role of AG, like many of his fellow Trump picks, with almost zero experience. He has a law degree, but that's as far as it goes. He has never been a practicing attorney, has never held any kind of high level government job, and is another being rewarded for being a Trump loyalist first.
So let's read about his chequered record, shall we? While a Representative for Florida (oh yes, good already: fucking Florida, where the most right-wing rabid Republicans seem all to be drawn to if Texas is not available) he favoured speeding up the process of executing prisoners on Death Row, voted (unsuccessfully) against a bill making revenge porn a criminal offence, and made sure the state "stand-your-ground-law", which allows homeowners to shoot and kill anyone entering their property, um, stood.
Practicing politics in Florida as a Republican, you can't help but fall under the long, bigoted shadow of De Santis, and Gaetz, possibly seeing in the governor a kindred spirit, helped his campaign in 2018. That same year he had as his guest at the State of the Union speech a known neo-Nazi and holocaust-denier, and associated with the Proud Boys as well as voting against honouring the police officers who defended the Capitol on January 6. He, too, seems to support the legalisation of cannabis, though given the fact that he was also facing drugs-related charges prior to his nomination, that's perhaps a little self-serving and not too surprising. He doesn't have a problem associating with murderers, bringing one to a swearing-in ceremony and hiring another as his military legislative aide. He's also a climate change-denier and wants to abolish the EPA (Lee Zeldin will probably help him with that).
He's another fiercely pro-Israel hawk, voted against the aid package for Ukraine and refused to condemn the military coup in Myanmar, but, not surprisingly, given the later charges against him, voted twice against measures to curb human sex trafficking. Which seems to me to be a good time then to go there. In 2020 Gaetz was investigated for trafficking at least one 17-year old girl across state lines for sex, and possibly recruiting others, for using campaign funds to buy sex, and sexual misconduct and illicit drug use; sharing inappropriate images or videos on the House floor; misusing state identification records; converting campaign funds to personal use; and accepting impermissible gifts under House rules. All of these charges were outstanding when he was targeted for the AG job by Trump, and all will surely now vanish.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Nov 16, 2024, 04:25 PMIt's because the Neo Nazis are really a smaller portion of MAGA populist movement than people think. They also have low educational threshold and they can explain away anything Trump does. Similar to blind cultists.
Thanks DJ. I guess that makes some sort of twisted, warped sense when you consider you're dealing with people who dispute any truth that they don't agree with, people who, if Trump said the sky was orange, would take up arms to defend that "truth".
Coming up next: A failed 2016 presidential candidate, a disgrace to a beloved American dynasty... and Doug Burgum.
Quote from: Trollheart on Nov 16, 2024, 02:59 PMCould someone cleverer than me (i.e., 99.9% of you) explain how it is that Trump is so supportive of Israel and yet also manages to successfully court the right, most of whom are white supremacist neo-Nazis who hate the Jews?
If you believe that is an accurate characterization of the right in America, I think that belies an understanding of where the majority of the American right is at and how Trump actually did court them from 2015 to now. For one, the right-wing conservatives of America have been extremely pro-Israel for a long time, far preceding Trump - that was one thing he didn't really change in terms of the shift from neoconservatism to "MAGA". It's the right who are much more likely to sympathize solely with Israel, whereas the left is more likely to sympathize with both Israel and Palestine (https://www.cfr.org/blog/partisan-gap-support-israel-seems-permanent). More broadly though, I think Trump can get away with a lot when it comes to foreign policy and his views/strategies on how things should be done (Israel not withstanding, as I don't think even he has a lot of wiggle room in the party on them), for the simple fact that most Americans simply can't be bothered with foreign policy (https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/blog/americans-care-foreign-policy/) as one of their important priorities, as the majority of them are much more concerned with what's happening domestically. Americans lack of interest in a general sense with foreign policy is one of the reasons the progressive left is so important. Of course, back in the '70s, Americans were much more in tune with foreign policy as we were actively drafting young men to go fight a war, but that only makes the activism and message of the progressive left regarding the situation of Israel and Palestine that much more important now.
Secondly, if you wanted a more accurate broad-brush stroke characterization of much of the right in America today compared to the left, I think it would be more fitting to characterize it as 'anti-establishment/anti-institutions' vs 'pro-establishment/pro-institutions' (just look at some of his cabinet picks in this thread for example). Since 2015, Trump has successfully sold a message of distrust, disdain, and general resentment against institutions that were once generally well respected and well regarded by most of the mainstream politicians in both parties - whether that be our intelligence agencies, our pharmaceutical industries, our military, our educational institutions, our immigration system, our media, our technology companies, our election systems, and of course, our politicians. This isn't to say that the left is always pro-institution and pro-establishment, certainly the progressive left is not - but the corporate democrats that haunt most of the halls of power generally are - Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, etc. - why wouldn't they be, they got elected and got rich with the system as it is!
Of course, this would raise the question of how a guy born into wealth, who benefited greatly from the establishment and donated to many establishment politicians was able to successfully convince enough voters that he is sincere in his anti-establishment rhetoric and goals to become president. Doing it once could be written off as a fluke, especially with how it happened in 2016 - doing it twice, with a popular vote to boot makes it much more difficult to write off.
Quote from: Trollheart on Nov 16, 2024, 08:30 PMThanks DJ. I guess that makes some sort of twisted, warped sense when you consider you're dealing with people who dispute any truth that they don't agree with, people who, if Trump said the sky was orange, would take up arms to defend that "truth".
There's certainly an aspect of truth to this - that there are Trump supporters who will buy whatever he's selling them, e.g. slapping universal tariffs and heavily leaning into trade wars will help your bottom line - but I think there's another aspect of the truth that many Democrats often overlook - that being that Trump is really,
really good at taking the temperature of the room and telling people what they want to hear, regardless of if it's true or not. And he also knows when to shift his messaging if it's not working - which it doesn't always. I'm reminded of when he, in typical Trumpian fashion, wanted to take credit for Operation Warp Speed (which he probably does deserve some credit for), and encouraged his supporters to get the vaccine - only to be met with boos and repudiation from his crowd. I'm sure you can guess, after he met this response from his crowds a few times, how often he boasted about the vaccines and encouraged people to get them after that.
It's often implied that Trump supporters are simply cultists - it's a comforting thought for those who despise him, because generally speaking, when a cult leader goes and dies, the cult dissipates. The more uncomfortable thought for those who despise Trump is that his supporters aren't simply a reflection of him, but rather, he's a reflection of his supporters and America more broadly - the good: a fighter's spirit, confidence, tenacity, courage; and of course also the bad: the immorality, the corruption, the greed, and the anger.
See? Like I said: people cleverer than me.
Thanks for setting me straight, SGR, though to be honest I'll never really understand the nuances of American politics. We're just not the same here: vote for this party, that party, the general underlying view is "they're all the fuckin' same". And pretty much they are. What do they stand for? Whatever is expedient at the time and whatever gets them re-elected. You can bet that if a MASSIVE percentage of voters were anti-immigrant or homophobes - a small percentage are, at least admit to it vocally and loudly - the main parties would all be courting that voting base.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR82h0MqIXvsJ6YfucR17hF8QXVIph-Iy8F8Q&s): America is mad.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Senator_Rubio_official_portrait.jpg/440px-Senator_Rubio_official_portrait.jpg)
Name: Marco Rubio
Age: 53
Position: Secretary of State
Previous Experience: Member of the House
Historic Interest: Failed presidential candidate; former enemy of Trump; first Latino to hold the office
Trump says: "He will be a strong Advocate for our Nation, a true friend to our Allies, and a fearless Warrior who will never back down to our adversaries."
He says: "That is like asking a boxer why they punched somebody in the face in the third round," Rubio told CNN when asked about his previous comments. "It's because they were boxing."
"We are going to have to do something, unfortunately, we're going to have to do something dramatic," Rubio said in a May interview with NBC. (Referring to Trump's plans to deport all illegal immigrants)
"Thousands of small businesses, not just the wealthy, will now be forced to decide how they'll pay this new tax, [the 2012 "fiscal cliff" tax] and, chances are, they'll do it by firing employees, cutting back their hours and benefits, or postponing the new hires they were looking to make. And to make matters worse, it does nothing to bring our dangerous debt under control."
In 2016, Rubio said the U.S. should "find out everything they know" from captured terrorists and should not telegraph "the enemy what interrogation techniques we will or won't use."
"By acting decisively against the very facility from which Assad launched his murderous chemical weapons attack, President Trump has made it clear to Assad and those who empower him that the days of committing war crimes with impunity are over." (2017)
Of the rioters, Rubio said some of them were adherents "to a conspiracy theory and others got caught up in the moment. The result was a national embarrassment." (2021)
[we must not hand]"the nuclear codes of the United States to an erratic individual" (2016)
"Donald's comments [on Access Hollywood] were vulgar, egregious & impossible to justify. No one should ever talk about any woman in those terms, even in private." (2016)
"I don't think we should be moving forward with a nominee in the last year of this president's term. I would say that even if it was a Republican president." (2016. Um)
When asked specifically about avoiding civilian casualties in Gaza, Rubio said Israel cannot coexist "with these savages.... They have to be eradicated."
Others say: "I'm trying to keep an open mind here," [Aaron David] Miller [Senior fellow of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace] said, noting that Rubio, because of his experience in Congress, has a better grasp of foreign policy than any of Trump's other appointees.
"I have worked with Marco Rubio for more than a decade on the intelligence committee, particularly closely in the last couple of years in his role as vice-chairman, and while we don't always agree, he is smart, talented, and will be a strong voice for American interests around the globe," (Senator Mark Warner, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee)
"He didn't have an objection to working with the other side simply because they were the other side. To put it bluntly, he wasn't a jerk. (Dan Gelber, House Democratic leader - I think only of Florida? Not sure - 2017)
Overall, this seems perhaps to be the least surprising, not to say least alarming, of Trump's picks. Although a staunch opponent, and indeed personal enemy of Trump's (the former and - God help us! - future president had a lot of nasty things to say about him and his wife), Rubio saw where the wind was blowing and reined in his anger at Trump. He has now been rewarded for abandoning both his principles and his loyalty to his wife, with one of the very top jobs. At least he has some experience, unlike almost all the other nominees, having served on the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But what kind of a man, and what kind of a politician is he? Let's find out.
Initially, he seems to have been more a centrist, a label I believe used disparagingly by his fellow Republicans, and later coined as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) by Trump. Although born in America, his family are of immigrant stock, having fled Cuba just prior to Castro's revolution, and Rubio, it seems, has or had some sympathy for them, co-sponsoring a bill which would allow the children of illegal immigrants to receive tuition paid by the state, he was on the side of farmers versus the state, and voiced concerns about widening the scope of police powers in the wake of 9/11.
So far, perhaps, so good. He blocked attempts by the governor of Florida to circumvent rules about expanding gambling casinos, attempted to fund schools by reducing state property taxes, but did all he could to steer Florida politics to the right from a mostly centrist position. Then again, he seemed to have no problem with a motion to have the state apologise for historic slavery, and set up programmes to help black children. It's hardly surprising to read that he supported the US embargo against Cuba, and in 2013 he was one of the "Gang of Eight" who put together proposals to reform the USA's immigration policies, but was against expansion of background checks for gun ownership and also against the release of a report on CIA torture. It is somewhat surprising though that he supported Trump's rescinding of DACA, given his own family origins, but this was 2017, just after he had failed to win the presidential nomination and was perhaps considering his options, as they say. However he seems to have performed the classic dance on the head of a pin as he mulled over whether to throw his support behind the defeated former president's claims of election fraud in 2020. Still, he was man enough to denounce the January 6 attempt at insurrection, so I guess that's something. But then a month later he voted to absolve Trump of any responsibility for the attack, and then against the setting up of the Jan 6 Commission.
A few words about his policies then before we close. Unlike many Republicans he seems to support, at least broadly, the idea of immigration, is against net neutrality, denounced the Russian invasion of Ukraine and is a vehement opponent of abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. He is of course strongly pro-Israel (I doubt Trump would have anyone in his cabinet who wasn't, or didn't say they were) and supports military intervention and regime change. He doesn't pretend climate change isn't real, but denies that its causes are primarily caused by us thick humans.
Quote from: Trollheart on Nov 17, 2024, 02:57 AM(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Senator_Rubio_official_portrait.jpg/440px-Senator_Rubio_official_portrait.jpg)
Name: Marco Rubio
It's Rubio!!
I look forward to Trump and Little Marco having engaging and thought-provoking national discussions just like they did 8 years ago.
Quote from: Trollheart on Nov 16, 2024, 02:59 PMCould someone cleverer than me (i.e., 99.9% of you) explain how it is that Trump is so supportive of Israel and yet also manages to successfully court the right, most of whom are white supremacist neo-Nazis who hate the Jews? Isn't that an almost fundamental difference, almost a massive conflict of interest? How do you resolve that? I'm remembering specifically the "Vaxx the Jews" signs (and we all know what they meant) - if Trump in power doesn't speak out against/clamp down on such sentiments, surely NetanGoogle is going to accuse him of being anti-Semetic? Yet he can't really, as he's empowered and released these cunts into the wild.
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/tZ6zAdNZbWOhq/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952gcsb9z93n7zj0ytk1n5g9lrancm7shgofv1vc0us&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
I've always had the impression that the far-right neo-Nazi extremist types in America tend to dislike the U.S. government and the Democrat party and the Republican party and politicians from both parties as much as they dislike Israel and Jews.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Robert_F._Kennedy%2C_Jr._by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg/440px-Robert_F._Kennedy%2C_Jr._by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg)
Name: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Age: 70
Position: Health and Human Services Secretary
Previous Experience: Zero
Historic Interest: Do I really have to say it? A man with part of his brain eaten away, as well as being the only member of the Kennedy dynasty to serve under a Republican president?
Trump says: "For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health," [Kennedy will] "end the Chronic Disease epidemic" and "Make America Great and Healthy Again! I'm going to let him go wild on health!"
He says: "There's no vaccine that is safe and effective." (2024)
"I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, 'Better not get them vaccinated"
"Polluters always choose the soft target of poverty." (2016)
[American politicians have] "been systematically hollowing out the American middle class and printing money to make billionaires richer." (2023)
"The very wealthy people should pay more taxes and corporations."
[The purpose of the war in Ukraine was to] "sacrifice the flower of Ukrainian youth in an abattoir of death and destruction for the geopolitical ambition of the neocons." (2023)
[Russians living in Donbas] "were being systematically killed by the Ukrainian government." (2023)
"[The] bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists 'hate us for our freedoms.' For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms—our own ideals—within their borders." (Politico, 2016)
[The country must] "start unraveling the Empire" by closing U.S. bases in different locations worldwide. (2023)
[Kennedy said he is] "arguably the leading environmentalist in the country." (2023)
Kennedy said of politicians skeptical of global warming that he "wished there were a law you could punish them under." (2015)
"Right now, we have a market that is governed by rules that were written by the carbon incumbents to reward the dirtiest, filthiest, most poisonous, most toxic, most war-mongering fields from hell, rather than the cheap, clean, green, wholesome and patriotic fields from heaven." (2020)
"If we want to have democracy, we need a broad ownership of our land by a wide variety of yeoman farmers, each with a stake in our system." (2023)
[The Koch Brothers made] "themselves billionaires by impoverishing the rest of us." (2015)
"The Koch brothers have all the money. They're putting $300 million this year into their efforts to stop the climate bill. And the only thing we have in our power is people power, and that's why we need to put this demonstration on the street." (2014)
[Trump is] "simply the radical step of a process that's been happening in our country and in the Republican Party from the past—really, since 1980—which is a growing hostility towards the environment, a growing orientation to representing the concentrated corporate power and power, particularly of the oil industry and the chemical industry and some of the other large polluting industries." (2020)
"People who advocate for safer vaccines should not be marginalized or denounced as anti-vaccine. I am pro-vaccine. I had all six of my children vaccinated. I believe that vaccines have saved the lives of hundreds of millions of humans over the past century and that broad vaccine coverage is critical to public health. But I want our vaccines to be as safe as possible." (2015)
"COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are the most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese ... we don't know whether it's deliberately targeted or not." (2023)
"A worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died." (2012)
Others say: "I don't want to go backwards and see children or adults suffer or lose their lives to remind us that vaccines work, and so I am concerned." (Dr. Mandy Cohen, Director of the CDC)
[Kennedy would be]"nothing short of a disaster for the health of millions of families." (Senator Patty Murray)
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said he was "excited" for Kennedy to lead HHS. Polis said he wants to see Kennedy take on "big pharma" and hopes he will "lean into personal choice" on vaccines.
That idea is concerning to former New York Public Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan, who said that if people opt out of getting vaccines, deadly viruses could run wild. He points to an uptick in measles outbreaks — 16 have occurred so far this year compared to four last year. "That's going to continue if we have someone at the top of our health system that is saying, 'I'm not so sure about the science here,' " Vasan said.
"People who are non-scientists are interpreting scientific data and making policy decisions based on emotion, not on objectivity," (Gerry Uswak, the director of the dental therapy program at the University of Saskatchewan)
[His argument with Krsytal Ball on Breaking Points was] "the single greatest defense of Israel on videos since the start of the" [Gaza war] - Rabbi Shmoely Boteach
Kennedy's "anti-vaccine disinformation" is effective "because it's portrayed to the public with graphs and figures and what appears to be scientific data. He has perfected the art of illusion of fact. This is about people's lives. And the consequences of promoting this kind of disinformation, as credible as it may seem, is simply dangerous." (Infectious disease expert Michael Osterholm, 2023)
[As soon as it was up] "we were besieged by scientists and advocates showing how Kennedy had misunderstood, incorrectly cited, and perhaps even falsified data.... It was the worst mistake of my career. I probably should have been fired." (Salon editor Joan Walsh, on the mistake publishing Kennedy's article "Deadly Immunity" in 2005)
[I don't] "know what's going on in [Kennedy's] head, but it's not good" - (Dr. Anthony Fauci, 2021)
(RFKJ) "has helped to spread dangerous misinformation over social media and is complicit in sowing distrust of the science behind vaccines." (Maeve Kennedy McKean, Kathleen and Joseph Kennedy, 2019)
If there's one person who typifies and epitomises the phrase "black sheep of the family" it's this guy. The only member of the Kennedy dynasty to switch allegiances from Democratto Republican, he is surely a disgrace to one of the greatest names in American presidential history, and his father and uncle must be rolling in their respective graves at how this man is about to trample upon their legacy. In real-world terms, RFKJ's deal with the devil must be tantamount to JFK signing up to work with Hitler, though of course the times are wrong, but you get the idea. There can be few more contradictory positions than for a Kennedy to be supporting Trump, but that's what we have now, and this man, who is possibly as dangerous as the man who will be sitting in the White House come January, is going to be deciding, without any medical expertise or experience or knowledge, America's health for at least the next four years.
Initially, it seems RFKJ was an environmental activist, though he struggled with cocaine and heroin addiction when younger, and also associated with known smugglers of endangered wildlife. You kind of have to wonder where it all went wrong? He appears to have been fighting on behalf of the little guy against big business, litigated for Native Americans and campaigned to have nuclear reactors shut down. All pretty commendable stuff, and work that his father and uncles would have been proud of. So what happened?
His Wiki page is a long one, and admittedly the scroll has barely moved, but so far everything I've read about him is stuff I'd give him credit for: helping the little guy, minorities, children, indigenous people, fighting for the environment and taking on the Federal government and the US military. If I didn't know how the story ended I would definitely be praising this guy, and in fairness, even if he is a nutjob now, you can't ignore or try to redact out of history his very worthy accomplishments up to that point. But was there an actual crisis point, something that swung him away from all the good work and onto the road of paranoia and conspiracy theories? I haven't come across it yet, but there's a long way to go, so maybe.
It seems he was one of the early proponents of election doubt, though this was initially directed at George W. Bush's questionable re-election in 2004, and it looks as if he only very recently switched sides, supporting Trump this year, but that prior to that he was considered for a post in the cabinets of many Democratic (and hopeful Democratic) presidents, including Obama, Gore and Kerry. Okay let's see if we can sort this out. Kennedy ran as a candidate for president, receiving big donations from the GOP, who thought they could use him as a "spoiler" candidate to block Harris and take votes from her. He began to talk to both parties when it became clear he wasn't getting the votes needed for his own campaign, and the only side that would deal with him was Trump's, and so he pledged his allegiance to the Big Fat Orange Cunt. I suppose I can see how that would kind of make sense: you support a party all your life, come from the most respected family in American politics in this or last century, and when it comes down to it, that party tells you to fuck off. Maybe it's not surprising you go to bat for the enemy.
On the other side of his personality though, as everyone knows, Kennedy is a conspiracy theorist and a vaccine sceptic (despite his quote above) and has repeatedly tried to link them to autism in children, claims which have been debunked by medical scientists and experts. Naturally he was in his element with Covid, claiming Dr. Fauci was profiting off it, and that Bill Gates was blackmailing people into getting the vaccine. He has also tried to link gender change/choice to vaccines or "something in the water". He suffers from adductor spasmodic dysphonia, a condition which makes his voice tremble, and makes it hard for him to speak, and quite frankly, just adds to the scary aspect of his being in charge of the nation's health.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Governor_Doug_Burgum.jpg/440px-Governor_Doug_Burgum.jpg)
Name: Doug Burgum
Age: 68
Position: Secretary of the Interior
Previous Experience: Governor of North Dakota
Historic Interest:
Trump says:"This Council (The National Energy Council) will oversee the path to U.S. ENERGY DOMINANCE by cutting red tape, enhancing private sector investments across all sectors of the Economy, and by focusing on INNOVATION over longstanding, but totally unnecessary, regulation. We will "DRILL BABY DRILL, expand ALL forms of Energy production to grow our Economy, and create good-paying jobs." (Pointless capitalisation is his, not mine)
He says: [Trump and I are concerned about] "the nexus between energy and inflation and the nexus between energy and national security. Energy is a component of everything — it's the clothes you wear, the food you eat. The AI battle affects everything from defense to healthcare to education to productivity as a country, and the AI that's coming in the next 18 months is going to be revolutionary. So there's just a sense of urgency and a sense of understanding in the Trump administration to address it."
[The US should put] "anti-warship missiles in Taiwan." (2024)
Others say: [Burgum's] "deep understanding of American energy resources and public lands positions him to tackle critical issues such as enhancing energy affordability ... and strengthening the U.S. in the global energy marketplace, (Erik Milito, President of the National Ocean Industries Association - which promotes offshore drilling)
[Burgum is] "a longtime friend to fossil fuel interests. The first Trump administration treated (public lands) like they're meant to be dug up, drilled or sold off for profit. Gov. Burgum's long track record of pushing for unchecked fossil fuel development sends a loud signal about which path they will take this time around." (David Seabrook, President of the Wilderness Society)
Another of the super-super-rich, Burgum is estimated to be worth just under a billion, and though he has set a target for his state (North Dakota) to be carbon neutral by 2030, he's still investing heavily in the usage of fossil fuels. Something I don't know? Quite a lot, probably, but I thought the two were kind of mutually exclusive, no? Perhaps another example of this is his acceptance of the post of Secretary of the Interior, despite his claims that he would accept no post if he was not nominated for President. He is, of course, against abortion (having signed all but a total ban on it into law in ND), gun control, critical race theory, trans rights and immigration, all the usual things you expect from a Republican.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Doug_Collins%2C_official_portrait_115th_Congress_%28cropped%29.jpg/440px-Doug_Collins%2C_official_portrait_115th_Congress_%28cropped%29.jpg)
Name: Doug Collins
Age: 58
Position: Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Previous Experience: Member of the House; serves (served?) on the House Judiciary Committee
Historic Interest:
Trump says: ""Doug is a Veteran himself, who currently serves our Nation as a Chaplain in the United States Air Force Reserve Command, and fought for our Country in the Iraq War.We must take care of our brave men and women in uniform, and Doug will be a great advocate for our Active Duty Servicemembers, Veterans, and Military Families to ensure they have the support they need. Thank you, Doug, for your willingness to serve our Country in this very important role!"
He says: "Honored to accept @realDonaldTrump nomination as Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Our heroes deserve the best care and support. We'll fight tirelessly to streamline and cut regulations in the VA, root out corruption, and ensure every veteran receives the benefits they've earned. Together, we'll make the VA work for those who fought for us. Time to deliver for our veterans and give them the world class care they deserve."
[Democrats are] "in love with terrorists" (2020)
"The executive order allows re-entry to lawful permanent residents and does not represent a comprehensive ban on entry to people from certain countries. In this temporary measure, President Trump has given us the opportunity to get refugee policy right going forward." (2017)
"RIP to the more than 30 million innocent babies that have been murdered during the decades that Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended pro-abortion laws. With @realDonaldTrump nominating a replacement that values human life, generations of unborn children have a chance to live." (2020)
"We will need to... ensure that government intelligence and law enforcement powers are never again used and turned on a private citizen or a political candidate as a result of the political leanings... If we carry anything away today it must be that we increase our vigilance against foreign election interference while we ensure our government officials don't weaponize their power against the constitutional rights guaranteed to every US citizen." (2019)
"I strongly support a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman." (2015)
Others say: Perhaps oddly, I can't find any reaction to his appointment.
Just what the VA needs - a fucking pastor and chaplain looking after their affairs! Another who likes dichotomies, Collins is all for the death penalty but against assisted suicide. So it's all right to murder people, but not to allow them to take, or be helped with taking, their own lives? Talk about playing God. Though what would you expect really from a clergyman? Oh, and of course he's against abortion, how surprising. Doesn't like immigrants either, or Obamacare, or climate change, and bought happily in to lies about the 2020 election being rigged.
He's one of Trump's biggest lick-arses, defending him in his impeachment trials and, oh, fuck it: you know by now. All the usual shit. Just another faceless yes-man who will rubberstamp all Trump's decisions and have no will of his own, bowing down in eternal subservience before the new fuhrer and licking his jackboots.
(https://y.yarn.co/61653527-379f-47e5-9291-c90ea27619b5_text.gif)
You know, I think that will do. I mean, there are fucking hundreds, even thousands of appointments to be made yet, but do I, or you, care about his Communications Director or the Guy Who Takes the Skin off His Kentucky Fried Chicken? I know I don't, and I think I've done a half-decent job writing about enough potential threats to American and world peace now that it's beginning to affect me, so I think I'll leave it at that. I may come back at some point and write a profile on Vance, but the rest of them can fuck off. I'm tuning out and watching the footy. This is giving me a headache. Anyone else who wants to contribute, knock yourself out. I'm done with this for now.
(https://i.ibb.co/nMg8b1J/T-K.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/B6Vmvc5/MFOTA.png)
Quote from: SGR on Nov 16, 2024, 11:33 PMIf you believe that is an accurate characterization of the right in America, I think that belies an understanding of where the majority of the American right is at and how Trump actually did court them from 2015 to now. For one, the right-wing conservatives of America have been extremely pro-Israel for a long time, far preceding Trump - that was one thing he didn't really change in terms of the shift from neoconservatism to "MAGA". It's the right who are much more likely to sympathize solely with Israel, whereas the left is more likely to sympathize with both Israel and Palestine (https://www.cfr.org/blog/partisan-gap-support-israel-seems-permanent). More broadly though, I think Trump can get away with a lot when it comes to foreign policy and his views/strategies on how things should be done (Israel not withstanding, as I don't think even he has a lot of wiggle room in the party on them), for the simple fact that most Americans simply can't be bothered with foreign policy (https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/blog/americans-care-foreign-policy/) as one of their important priorities, as the majority of them are much more concerned with what's happening domestically. Americans lack of interest in a general sense with foreign policy is one of the reasons the progressive left is so important. Of course, back in the '70s, Americans were much more in tune with foreign policy as we were actively drafting young men to go fight a war, but that only makes the activism and message of the progressive left regarding the situation of Israel and Palestine that much more important now.
Secondly, if you wanted a more accurate broad-brush stroke characterization of much of the right in America today compared to the left, I think it would be more fitting to characterize it as 'anti-establishment/anti-institutions' vs 'pro-establishment/pro-institutions' (just look at some of his cabinet picks in this thread for example). Since 2015, Trump has successfully sold a message of distrust, disdain, and general resentment against institutions that were once generally well respected and well regarded by most of the mainstream politicians in both parties - whether that be our intelligence agencies, our pharmaceutical industries, our military, our educational institutions, our immigration system, our media, our technology companies, our election systems, and of course, our politicians. This isn't to say that the left is always pro-institution and pro-establishment, certainly the progressive left is not - but the corporate democrats that haunt most of the halls of power generally are - Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, etc. - why wouldn't they be, they got elected and got rich with the system as it is!
Of course, this would raise the question of how a guy born into wealth, who benefited greatly from the establishment and donated to many establishment politicians was able to successfully convince enough voters that he is sincere in his anti-establishment rhetoric and goals to become president. Doing it once could be written off as a fluke, especially with how it happened in 2016 - doing it twice, with a popular vote to boot makes it much more difficult to write off.
There's certainly an aspect of truth to this - that there are Trump supporters who will buy whatever he's selling them, e.g. slapping universal tariffs and heavily leaning into trade wars will help your bottom line - but I think there's another aspect of the truth that many Democrats often overlook - that being that Trump is really, really good at taking the temperature of the room and telling people what they want to hear, regardless of if it's true or not. And he also knows when to shift his messaging if it's not working - which it doesn't always. I'm reminded of when he, in typical Trumpian fashion, wanted to take credit for Operation Warp Speed (which he probably does deserve some credit for), and encouraged his supporters to get the vaccine - only to be met with boos and repudiation from his crowd. I'm sure you can guess, after he met this response from his crowds a few times, how often he boasted about the vaccines and encouraged people to get them after that.
It's often implied that Trump supporters are simply cultists - it's a comforting thought for those who despise him, because generally speaking, when a cult leader goes and dies, the cult dissipates. The more uncomfortable thought for those who despise Trump is that his supporters aren't simply a reflection of him, but rather, he's a reflection of his supporters and America more broadly - the good: a fighter's spirit, confidence, tenacity, courage; and of course also the bad: the immorality, the corruption, the greed, and the anger.
I don't think most people who use the terminology of pro-establiment vs anti-establishment have any kind of coherent meaning in mind beyond vibes. It's a vague dissatisfaction with the status quo that exists among the populace that is tapped into by demogagues. The thing that seems to make populist rhetoric work is that it blames our problems on a kind of shady elite who's interests are at odds with those of the people. For Bernie Sanders, that's the interests of the billionares and big business. For Trump, it's the deep state.
In either case, it's an intuitive narrative that easily appeals to a lot of people and can often serve as both a motivating reason to promote their particular agenda, but also a useful framing device for explaining away shortcomings, losses, etc. These things are easyv to explain away when "the system is rigged against you." And even more so, by Trump in particular, it's utilized to frame him as a victim of said deep state which only makes him more authentic in the minds of his followers. The myriad of criminal charges leveled against him are proof positive not of his criminal tendencies but of the fact that he is a martyr of the deep state. It's a self reinforcing narrative that can easily make sense of any event. Whether Trump wins or loses the election, it confirms the narrative. Whether he is convicted or beats the charges. It never matters.
I believe it doesn't even really matter if he is a criminal or if he wants to be a dictator, in the minds of many MAGA voters. All the better to have him fighting in your corner.
Does anyone think Trump actually really stands for anything, or is it all just go with what he thinks people want, what will get him the votes and the support? Does he have any principles at all, anything he believes in (besides making money and having the heads of his enemies impaled on the spikes of the White House gates)? In other words, are there issues he truly, genuinely believes in (just say electric cars, or immigration, or whatever) or is he just a chameleon who, if the circumstances demand it and the wind changes, goes in the prevailing direction? Is he, in the end, an empty suit, the literal straw man, or is there anything of substance there at all? Is it all smoke and mirrors and snake oil?
It depends. I thought at first that a lot of the anti immigration rhetoric and xenophobia he engaged in during his first campaign seemed sort of cynical and geared toward the sentiment of the times. But he has not relented from that messaging and basic vision of things so for all intents and purposes I think he more or less buys into it. I think it's even more likely that he believes all the stuff about the US getting taken advantage of in trade deals and by our NATO allies who relied on the American security umbrella without investing in their own seven defense. Because he's been beating that same drum since the late 80's.
I think he's willing to say what he needs to in order to get elected when it comes to topics like abortion, topics he doesn't really care about. But for the handful of issues he's made his brand, either he believes them or if it's a grift then it's one that he's been cultivating for more than 30 years.
I think it makes it very difficult to know what someone actually stands for - if they do - when they appear to bend with whichever way the wind is blowing. I mean, as a purely hypothetical example, something I know would never happen, let's assume that 99% of people in the USA during Covid believed passionately in vaccines and rejected the conspiracy theories, would he have gone with the flow, bowed to the will of the people? If he sincerely (a word, I know, not normally used to describe him) believed the virus was manufactured and the lies spun about it, would he have tried to convince/browbeat everyone to accept his view? Or, to take another, perhaps slightly more believable example, if he suddenly cozied up to China, but American opinion was against them, would he fold or fight his corner?
I hesitate to trot out the old Hitler comparisons, but this one seems to me to illustrate at least his (Hitler's), for want of another word, dedication to his own beliefs. I have no doubt at all that if all of Germany rejected the idea of hatred against the Jews, Hitler would have continued pushing it, because it wasn't, to him, just a means to an end (though of course it was that too): he sincerely (again, probably not a great word to use but I can't think of another right now) believed what he was saying, it wasn't just all propaganda. So to be terribly insensitive about it, you could say that you always knew where Hitler stood. You might say - I don't know if I'm right - Kennedy (JFK) fighting for civil rights in the case of that school in Alabama (was it? Maybe Georgia; one of the deep South states anyway) refusing to allow black students, and sending in the National Guard, even though he knew he might lose votes there, is another example of someone showing that they don't just use a cause for their own ends, they truly believe in and are prepared to fight for it. I'm not so sure there's anything you can say falls into that category about Trump, other than money, power and Donald Trump.
Incidentally, not being smart, but in your response: "their own seven defense"? I know autocorrect can fuck you up, but I can't figure out what you meant there?
Trump has no positions or anything he stands for outside of wanting people close to him to be die hard loyalists and to make money for him and his family. He just wants the power to get himself off charges and his buddies ie the Gaetz pick.
He will flip flop on issues depending on the audience he is speaking to because he's a con man/drifter. He will say he back Israel then headed to Michigan to bring some Muslims on stage to say he's pro Palestinian and wants the conflict to end. He's also said in an interview that he just wants Netenayahu to just hurry it up and finish it like kill everyone he has to and I guess stop. He says that more from the aspect of wanting to start construction in the area on some beachfront property.
Oh and seven defense probably means self defense.
DOJ and FBI officials reach out to lawyers as potential Trump revenge prosecutions loom (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/doj-fbi-officials-reach-lawyers-potential-trump-revenge-prosecutions-l-rcna179737)
Quote from: Trollheart on Nov 18, 2024, 03:23 AMI think it makes it very difficult to know what someone actually stands for - if they do - when they appear to bend with whichever way the wind is blowing. I mean, as a purely hypothetical example, something I know would never happen, let's assume that 99% of people in the USA during Covid believed passionately in vaccines and rejected the conspiracy theories, would he have gone with the flow, bowed to the will of the people? If he sincerely (a word, I know, not normally used to describe him) believed the virus was manufactured and the lies spun about it, would he have tried to convince/browbeat everyone to accept his view? Or, to take another, perhaps slightly more believable example, if he suddenly cozied up to China, but American opinion was against them, would he fold or fight his corner?
I hesitate to trot out the old Hitler comparisons, but this one seems to me to illustrate at least his (Hitler's), for want of another word, dedication to his own beliefs. I have no doubt at all that if all of Germany rejected the idea of hatred against the Jews, Hitler would have continued pushing it, because it wasn't, to him, just a means to an end (though of course it was that too): he sincerely (again, probably not a great word to use but I can't think of another right now) believed what he was saying, it wasn't just all propaganda. So to be terribly insensitive about it, you could say that you always knew where Hitler stood. You might say - I don't know if I'm right - Kennedy (JFK) fighting for civil rights in the case of that school in Alabama (was it? Maybe Georgia; one of the deep South states anyway) refusing to allow black students, and sending in the National Guard, even though he knew he might lose votes there, is another example of someone showing that they don't just use a cause for their own ends, they truly believe in and are prepared to fight for it. I'm not so sure there's anything you can say falls into that category about Trump, other than money, power and Donald Trump.
Incidentally, not being smart, but in your response: "their own seven defense"? I know autocorrect can fuck you up, but I can't figure out what you meant there?
I'd agree with jwb that he seems to have genuine beliefs around things like trade agreements and security alliances (and the discrepancy in the cost to America in maintaining those alliances). To his point, you can go back to interviews he gave in the 80s and 90s and pick up on many of these same themes and beliefs, which is the indicator that it's most likely a genuine belief.
If what you're actually looking for are some high-minded and selfless convictions that Trump has like, to your example, JFK - or an Abraham Lincoln - then I'm not sure you'll find that with Trump. There's a moral turpitude with Trump that makes him stand out among US presidents, but not so much for the immorality (which, if you honestly assess many US presidents, you'll find it with probably most of them in one degree or another), but rather because Trump almost always doubles down, denies, and defames his accusers and opponents when he's called out on his moral failings.
One aspect to who Trump is and why he acts the way he does can be somewhat decoded by his relationship with lawyer Roy Cohn (who used to be the special counsel for Senator Joseph McCarthy in the '50s - and if you know much about US history, the fact that the same man who in a sense brought you Joseph McCarthy also brought you Donald Trump is telling). PBS Frontline had a recent piece (https://archive.ph/U5IDA#selection-483.0-483.72) on the relationship - and if anyone has a goal of trying to understand Trump, I don't think you can do it without understanding the lessons he learned through the mentorship of Roy Cohn:
Quote"Roy went on the offensive and said this is a victory; Trump was vindicated," Marcus says. "He knew before anybody else did that the court of public opinion is often more important than a court of law."
The Choice 2024 draws a through line from that moment to the present, showing how Cohn's playbook for the race discrimination suit became an enduring guide for Trump in handling future crises: Deny everything, fight back, and go on the offensive to declare victory.
"If somebody attacks him, he attacks them back, he says, ten times as hard," says Peter Baker of The New York Times. "He's not about diplomacy. He's not about negotiation. He is all about the fight."
When you consider the idea that the 'court of public opinion is often more important than a court of law', you could see the motivation for why Trump appeared on so many podcasts in this recent election cycle, not only amplifying his message to millions, but also in a sense humanizing and normalizing him. You could also tie this idea back to why all the indictments and legal cases against him didn't seem to have much of an effect on his support and voter turnout:
Most US voters think Trump criminal trial 'politically motivated' (https://www.ft.com/content/0df17a55-f3a3-4f08-836d-3070dfea71ff)There was recently a biopic movie about Trump released called
The Apprentice - I haven't yet watched it myself, so I can't say personally whether or not it's any good, but I have heard from some people that it does do a decent job at explaining the influence Roy Cohn had on Trump and his approach to the media and politics:
Quote from: Jwb on Nov 18, 2024, 12:13 AMI don't think most people who use the terminology of pro-establiment vs anti-establishment have any kind of coherent meaning in mind beyond vibes. It's a vague dissatisfaction with the status quo that exists among the populace that is tapped into by demogagues. The thing that seems to make populist rhetoric work is that it blames our problems on a kind of shady elite who's interests are at odds with those of the people. For Bernie Sanders, that's the interests of the billionares and big business. For Trump, it's the deep state.
In either case, it's an intuitive narrative that easily appeals to a lot of people and can often serve as both a motivating reason to promote their particular agenda, but also a useful framing device for explaining away shortcomings, losses, etc. These things are easyv to explain away when "the system is rigged against you." And even more so, by Trump in particular, it's utilized to frame him as a victim of said deep state which only makes him more authentic in the minds of his followers. The myriad of criminal charges leveled against him are proof positive not of his criminal tendencies but of the fact that he is a martyr of the deep state. It's a self reinforcing narrative that can easily make sense of any event. Whether Trump wins or loses the election, it confirms the narrative. Whether he is convicted or beats the charges. It never matters.
I believe it doesn't even really matter if he is a criminal or if he wants to be a dictator, in the minds of many MAGA voters. All the better to have him fighting in your corner.
Yes, I think your assessment of why and how this populist rhetoric works is mostly fair. One thing I might amend though is the following:
Quote from: Jwb on Nov 18, 2024, 12:13 AMIt's a self reinforcing narrative that can easily make sense of any event.
I think it might more accurately be referred to as a feedback loop, rather than a self reinforcing narrative - at least in Trump's case. In other words, Trump's framing couldn't exist (or at least couldn't be successful) in a vacuum. It's a framing that relies on a cycle of action-reaction, or output-input-output.
Trump says the deep state are going after you, and he's just in the way - then he proceeds to say or do something that is morally questionable, unethical, or criminal - and then he's plastered on the news practically 24/7...and he gets impeached...and a special counsel is formed to investigate him...and he gets indicted...and he gets convicted...and he gets shot at. The narrative or framing is only as persuasive/successful as it is because he's constantly engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with the media, the government, and the courts. While I agree that the overriding narrative is extremely flexible, and can be used to explain or 'frame' almost any event, imo, the narrative of 'The Trump Show' (so to speak) doesn't work unless Tom chases Jerry.
Hypothetically, if Trump had won in 2016 and behaved better than a choir boy in his words and conduct (and as a result, let's say there were no investigations, no impeachments, no endless negative news coverage, etc) - would the narrative that the evil and corrupt deep state is out to get him and get you still resonate with people and help him win re-election?
I get what you mean. From my point of view, the only problem with your assessment is that it buys into the presumption that Tom exists. That Tom is actually chasing Jerry. The way that it is spoken about by Trump and his acolytes and followers, whether it's a random incel shooter trying to take Trump's head off, a member of the press running a bad story, a member of congress who votes to impeach him, an intelligence agency that launches an investigation, or a prosecutor that decides to pursue charges, they're all a part of the same insidious conspiracy to take down Trump on behalf of the nebulous Deep State that is in some vague way implied to have orchestrated all of these efforts.
So what if for example they just decide not to press charges for the sake of political expediency? Well, for one, that would be an actual deep state plot to affect our politics. If the DOJ and intelligence agencies decided that going after Trump in any sense would help his hand, and they decided to look the other way on plausible criminal cases as a result, that is them prioritizing electoral concerns over the rule of law. That actually is a bigger problem than inadvertently helping his electoral prospects through trying to legitimately uphold the law.
In addition, it basically would normalize whatever behavior we are talking about and basically set the precedent that the president can get away with any of these behaviors because it will always just be too politically sensitive to try to hold him to justice.
That's not to say the intelligence agencies made no mistakes, but even so I don't think it was ridiculous in the first place to look into the Trump Russia connection. I think it's patently absurd that anyone thinks that they shouldn't have looked into that, even if there are legitimate criticisms of the methods they employed early on in the investigation (it's been a while but from what I remember there was a problem with a FISA warrant or something?), ultimately they basically said there's clear evidence of obstruction, but didn't find any clear evidence of collusion. Which as far as I can tell was in accordance with the facts and basically was a win for Donald Trump. So why is it still cited by MAGA as some type of insidious witch hunt? What kind of witch hunt doesn't find you guilty in the end?
As for Trump the chior boy... such a Trump would have never gotten elected. He was basically pitched as a bull in a China shop. The idea that you can campaign and politic in the way he does and not expect to make waves is just a non starter for me as a hypothetical, because I have a hard time imagining what would have set him apart from the mold if it wasn't for this inherent antagonism.
Even early on in his first campaign, there was the sense that both the media pundits and the establishment Republicans were in stark opposition to Trump, and I think that's where his first sorta credentials as the embattled outsider came from. It was antagonism from the get go. Who is on what side of the battle has shifted over time, but that basic dynamic is central to his political identity.
Quote from: Jwb on Nov 19, 2024, 01:58 AMI get what you mean. From my point of view, the only problem with your assessment is that it buys into the presumption that Tom exists. That Tom is actually chasing Jerry. The way that it is spoken about by Trump and his acolytes and followers, whether it's a random incel shooter trying to take Trump's head off, a member of the press running a bad story, a member of congress who votes to impeach him, an intelligence agency that launches an investigation, or a prosecutor that decides to pursue charges, they're all a part of the same insidious conspiracy to take down Trump on behalf of the nebulous Deep State that is in some vague way implied to have orchestrated all of these efforts.
So what if for example they just decide not to press charges for the sake of political expediency? Well, for one, that would be an actual deep state plot to affect our politics. If the DOJ and intelligence agencies decided that going after Trump in any sense would help his hand, and they decided to look the other way on plausible criminal cases as a result, that is them prioritizing electoral concerns over the rule of law. That actually is a bigger problem than inadvertently helping his electoral prospects through trying to legitimately uphold the law.
In addition, it basically would normalize whatever behavior we are talking about and basically set the precedent that the president can get away with any of these behaviors because it will always just be too politically sensitive to try to hold him to justice.
The analogy of the cat and mouse game and Tom and Jerry is only an analogy for the narrative itself, as Trump presents it to his supporters, not an analogy for reality and how things have actually gone down.
Liberals and opponents of Trump essentially take it as proof-positive that Trump has (at least potentially in some cases) broken laws, violated his oath to the constitution, engaged in corruption, etc and the systems of government, justice, and media are reacting accordingly and justifiably (they reject Trump's narrative/framing), while his supporters, as you point out, take it as proof-positive that Trump was right all along and all these systems are in concert or cahoots, politically persecuting Trump rather than justly prosecuting him. Conspiracy or no conspiracy, justly or unjustly, my point is simply that the narrative Trump presents essentially requires opposition, blowback, and prosecution to sustain itself - it can't sustain itself on the narrative alone in a vacuum - at least not long term.
Per your description of them deciding not to press charges, if they decided solely based on whether or not they believed it would help Trump politically would be a betrayal of their duties, but I don't think it wouldn't necessarily require a deep state plot (I suppose it's important to quantify which 'they' we're talking about and who 'they' consists of) to do so (just like the charges filed now didn't require a deep state plot). For several of the cases, as far as I understand it, it would be up to the discretion of the State AG and various district attorneys to decide whether or not the case has enough merit to be worth pursuing. Even if they ultimately decided not to based on their belief that it would help Trump, they obviously could justify it publicly with other reasons not to pursue, assumedly in an independent fashion. But to your overarching point, yes, electoral concerns should not play a part in the decision to press charges, whether it would be a boon or a bust for your side politically to do so, and it would set terrible precedent if those deciding factors/motivations were revealed.
Quote from: Jwb on Nov 19, 2024, 01:58 AMThat's not to say the intelligence agencies made no mistakes, but even so I don't think it was ridiculous in the first place to look into the Trump Russia connection. I think it's patently absurd that anyone thinks that they shouldn't have looked into that, even if there are legitimate criticisms of the methods they employed early on in the investigation (it's been a while but from what I remember there was a problem with a FISA warrant or something?), ultimately they basically said there's clear evidence of obstruction, but didn't find any clear evidence of collusion. Which as far as I can tell was in accordance with the facts and basically was a win for Donald Trump. So why is it still cited by MAGA as some type of insidious witch hunt? What kind of witch hunt doesn't find you guilty in the end?
I don't remember all the ins-and-outs of the Russia Collusion investigation, the Muller report, or the subsequent Durham report, but I think we've both kind of answered that question already, haven't we? Because it falls practically perfectly into Trump's narrative frame. In other words, if you've already accepted Trump's frame, this case would only be viewed via confirmation bias, especially because there were mistakes made by the intelligence agencies, the media talked about it endlessly for two years, and the ultimate findings were favorable to Trump in that there wasn't clear evidence of collusion. I assume the analogy of a 'witch hunt' was used by Trump/his supporters with the view that there was no witch (totally off topic, but I recently picked up an antique book on the history of witch hunts, and holy shit, is it brutal - worse than I ever read about in passing).
Quote from: Jwb on Nov 19, 2024, 01:58 AMAs for Trump the chior boy... such a Trump would have never gotten elected. He was basically pitched as a bull in a China shop. The idea that you can campaign and politic in the way he does and not expect to make waves is just a non starter for me as a hypothetical, because I have a hard time imagining what would have set him apart from the mold if it wasn't for this inherent antagonism.
Even early on in his first campaign, there was the sense that both the media pundits and the establishment Republicans were in stark opposition to Trump, and I think that's where his first sorta credentials as the embattled outsider came from. It was antagonism from the get go. Who is on what side of the battle has shifted over time, but that basic dynamic is central to his political identity.
Yes, as a hypothetical it's not particularly believable I admit. I suppose I was looking at it from the point of view that we've had many presidents who campaign as real nice, standup guys - the kinda guys that you'd invite over for dinner, or that you'd be comfortable hiring to babysit your kids for a while - but then they get in office and do some absolutely terrible and evil shit. Whereas in the hypothetical, it would've been Trump doing the opposite, campaigning as an antagonistic 'bull in a china shop' asshole but then being a real standup guy who's easy to work with and plays by the rules once he got in office. I know, not believable, especially with his history - but my only point is that I don't think his 'corrupt deep state out to get me' narrative would work any longer in that case - which doesn't mean necessarily that he couldn't win re-election, just that he'd need a new narrative.
RFK Jr.'s No. 1 hurdle to take on unhealthy food: Money (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/rfk-jrs-no-1-hurdle-take-unhealthy-food-money-rcna180365)
Linda McMahon is back with another role she isn't qualified for Secretary of Education
https://apnews.com/article/linda-mcmahon-trump-education-secretary-wwe-613016d0c164b89765af761404cbb123 (https://apnews.com/article/linda-mcmahon-trump-education-secretary-wwe-613016d0c164b89765af761404cbb123)
QuoteA month after defeating Hillary Clinton, Trump chose McMahon as leader of the Small Business Administration. The agency gives loans and disaster relief to companies and entrepreneurs, and it monitors government officials' compliance with contract laws.
This was her previous role in the last term.
Dr. Oz is heading up Medicare and Medicaid
https://www.newsweek.com/what-dr-oz-has-said-about-changing-medicare-1989533 (https://www.newsweek.com/what-dr-oz-has-said-about-changing-medicare-1989533)
Even though he's been a tv doctor he does have actually experience being a doctor as opposed to someone like Dr. Phil.
QuoteIf confirmed by the Senate, the celebrity heart surgeon turned TV star, who has been criticized for promoting health misinformation, would be responsible for the three federal programs—Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act—that more than half the country relies on for health insurance.
Well thank Jaysus for that! It's certainly something...
News Alert: Matt Gaetz withdraws from attorney general consideration
Former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz said Thursday that he is withdrawing as President-elect Donald Trump's pick for attorney general, writing on social media that his nomination "was unfairly becoming a distraction."
Gaetz's withdrawal comes after meetings with Republican senators this week, as Trump's transition team sought to gauge whether he would win enough GOP support to be confirmed.
Democrats were pressing for the disclosure of a House Ethics Committee report detailing its investigation into Gaetz, including over allegations of sexual misconduct and other alleged crimes, after the panel's Republicans voted on Wednesday not to release the probe's results.
Gaetz has vehemently denied the allegations investigated by the Justice Department and the committee, including the claim that he had sex with a woman in 2017 when she was a minor.
I feel like this was a big elaborate ruse just to get himself to avoid the details of that case being leaked.
He called Trump up for a favor and he had to resign before Friday of that week or else it would have all come out. So Trump announced him for AG so he could resign and then he turns around and declines it. He still has his job that he resigned from because he was re elected. So come January he's gonna be back in his old position that he resigned from.
Interesting, but no.
News Alert: Gaetz says he's not rejoining Congress next year
Former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, who withdrew from consideration as President-elect Donald Trump's pick for attorney general on Thursday, said Friday he will not be rejoining Congress next year.
"I'm still going to be in the fight, but it's going to be from a new perch. I do not intend to join the 119th Congress," he told Charlie Kirk in an interview.
Quote from: Trollheart on Nov 22, 2024, 06:22 PMInteresting, but no.
News Alert: Gaetz says he's not rejoining Congress next year
Former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, who withdrew from consideration as President-elect Donald Trump's pick for attorney general on Thursday, said Friday he will not be rejoining Congress next year.
"I'm still going to be in the fight, but it's going to be from a new perch. I do not intend to join the 119th Congress," he told Charlie Kirk in an interview.
Trump must've promised him a place somewhere in his administration which doesn't require a confirmation hearing.
Well I guess they are gonna have to run a special election for his seat then.
Who'd want to sit in it though, after what he's been up to? Urgh!
They don't care. There is actually a conspiracy theory that he didn't want the report out about the minor not because he had sex with a minor but because there was another adult woman involved and I guess they want to keep her name under wraps. These politicians are disgusting. Oh also MTG threatened to release other people's scandals if his came out.
MTG(Marjorie Taylor Greene) is also going to be involved with the Department of Government Efficiency.
I know bro. It was just a joke at his expense.
Fucking knew that crazy broad was going to get involved. ::) How will Trump square her anti-semitic views with his administration's support of Israel? Isn't she the one who said "Jews are placing lasers in space" or something?
Trump meets with NATO head in Florida for talks on global security (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-nato-mark-rutte-meeting-florida/)
The REAL REASON Republicans In Congress Hate Matt Gaetz! w/ Ian Carroll
Well if rumours are to be believed, he certainly exposes something! :laughing:
Jack Smith drops 2020 election interference case against Trump (https://www.axios.com/2024/11/25/jack-smith-trump-dc-case-dismissed)
Well he had to, didn't he? Trump was going to fire him "in the first two seconds" of his administration, and he himself has decided to quit rather than wait for the fat orange finger to point at him. What else was going to happen? Least surprising event ever.
I believe trump is and was the best thing to happen to America. Unless you're trans or an illegal immigrant you should be fine. Otherwise this man is about to tell the best adaptation of 1984 we've ever seen.
This is sarcasm, right? I hope this is sarcasm. Tell me this is sarcasm.
Quote from: Trollheart on Nov 27, 2024, 12:50 AMThis is sarcasm, right? I hope this is sarcasm. Tell me this is sarcasm.
Nah he was drunkenly rambling about it on discord too, doesn't have a solid platform either was just one upping himself the entire time, conveniently always changing his position to be more right than two trans people living in America.
Anyways sadly it doesn't seem like satire. Man needs to lay off the bottle though
😂😂😂
He's a good lad honest. I knew he had probably been drinking. He exploded onto the forum at 5am and randomly started mass posting.
Funny.
Hasn't added me on Discord yet though sort it out
@Thelonious Monkey
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Nov 27, 2024, 12:27 PM😂😂😂
He's a good lad honest. I knew he had probably been drinking. He exploded onto the forum at 5am and randomly started mass posting.
Funny.
Hasn't added me on Discord yet though sort it out @Thelonious Monkey
On Discord he said he was looking for you but couldn't find your name so just send him a request. He's Justin on discord
Quote from: DJChameleon on Nov 27, 2024, 01:00 PMOn Discord he said he was looking for you but couldn't find your name so just send him a request. He's Justin on discord
Don't think he is. Click his username and go to his profile and see what his account name is.
His name in the server is probably something different.
Cheers Big D.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Nov 28, 2024, 01:40 AMDon't think he is. Click his username and go to his profile and see what his account name is.
His name in the server is probably something different.
Cheers Big D.
theloniousmonkey.
Make sure the period is there
(https://media.tenor.com/msuyiU6Dkv0AAAAM/jaws-jaws2.gif)
While I don't mean to trivialise how scary the coming years are going to be for some of you, we do need to start thinking about the dark day when Trump retakes his throne and starts issuing edicts left, right, and possibly also centre too, who knows? So I'm bumping this thread and add what you want: what do you think his first actions will be on sitting behind that desk again? How is America/the world going to cope with Trump 2.0: This Time It's Personal? What are your fears, or do you even look forward to/support any/some of his promised policies/promises/threats?
Like it or not, it's going to be a Trump New Year. The countdown begins now.
Hell with it: I'm going to sticky this, sure why not? It's certainly going to be relevant for at least the next four years. Done!
My guess is that his 'mass deportation' isn't going to be as massive as some might think. My guess is he will very quickly issue whatever executive orders that his admin believes are necessary (if there even are any that are necessary, as the Biden admin issued similar executive orders five or so months ago to severely curtail the flow), and the deportations will soon begin - but the first to go (and the focus) will be on those who have committed crimes since they've come into the country, and probably those who've crossed over recently (and aren't already working or have family connections).
There's been suggestion, rightly, that given it will be Trump's second term, he will be less bound by norms because he won't need to worry about getting re-elected and as such, there's a risk he could do some crazy stuff that his base might love, but that would alienate moderates and liberals - this is true. There's a flip-side to this coin though: now that it's gonna be his second term, he doesn't need the undying faith and support of his base for re-election, and as such, he is at liberty to do things that his base might view as a serious compromise or even a betrayal (of his message and platform), but that moderates and liberals might actually reticently approve of and can work with. In other words, he is in a position where he could more reasonably play ball with Democrats/moderates (there's a few moderate Republican senators that could dog Trump) to get things in his agenda done (undoubtedly with some bones thrown and compromises had). Whether Trump could actually deftly handle and use this kind of political capital in a way that is productive and useful is probably a bet that I wouldn't take though. :laughing:
I'm not going to get myself too worried or upset about potentials. He is a known con man and I don't believe most of the things that he says. I'm going to treat his term as just reactionary to what is actually being done as opposed to what we think he's going to do. I rather fight against what's actually happening vs what ifs.
Some people are so worried about the mass deportation that they are willingly deporting themselves ahead of time and I think that's the wrong move but I'm not in their position so it's not my place to say how they should prepare.
Camps are already being built in Texas and Arizona to hold migrants. I feel like our economy is gonna take a huge hit if he's able to pull it off because migrant farmers are gonna be rounded up and our vegetables and fruits are gonna go up in prices because of it. Average Americans don't want to work those type of jobs.
Trump voters are in for a wide awakening where he's gonna fall short on a lot of the empty promises he put out there. He's already started backpedaling about being able to bring down the cost of groceries that he promised and people voted because the price of eggs is too high waaaah.
Probably a good approach
@DJChameleon regarding how to handle his second term.
I was thinking, we're like 19 days away from the inauguration and his accompanying inauguration speech. Generally, when presidents give speeches like this (and the state of the union), the press will usually pick a few adjectives to describe the speech, and usually one or two adjectives feature more prominently than others across different outlets. I believe in Trump's 2017 inauguration speech, that adjective was 'dark'. I wonder what the adjective will be this time, and what kind of tone he'll look to have in the speech.
I think one could draw some symbolism out of this.
https://x.com/kaaaassuu/status/1874506594425381133
What's a cybertruck??
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 02, 2025, 01:54 AMWhat's a cybertruck??
It's basically an ugly electric vehicle that looks like a DeLorean and a Hummer had a baby.
Thanks. But what's "cyber" about it?
It's just a catchy name for the futuristic looking design. There is nothing cyber about it except for it being an electric truck. Plug it in to charge it up that's about it.
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 02, 2025, 04:04 AMThanks. But what's "cyber" about it?
Picture in the Wiki page. Time was you couldn't get one for less than $100,000. The shine has gone and now there are deals. The only color is steel gray, but some are doing extra paint jobs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Cybertruck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Cybertruck)
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Jan 02, 2025, 09:35 PMPicture in the Wiki page. Time was you couldn't get one for less than $100,000. The shine has gone and now there are deals. The only color is steel gray, but some are doing extra paint jobs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Cybertruck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Cybertruck)
Some? I keep seeing people wrap their Cybertrucks with advertisements for businesses. It seems like 80% of the most recent ones I have seen have been wrapped.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 02, 2025, 11:45 PMSome? I keep seeing people wrap their Cybertrucks with advertisements for businesses. It seems like 80% of the most recent ones I have seen have been wrapped.
No idea on the numbers relative to the total, but where I am, I've seen a fair few of them, but none were wrapped with advertisements. One had an army-green paint job. Using them as ads feels inevitable though - they are eye catching and it's hard not to look, it's a love-it or hate-it thing. I think they look ugly. But they are unique looking.
Musk's Mass Migrant Movers then?
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Jan 02, 2025, 09:35 PMPicture in the Wiki page. Time was you couldn't get one for less than $100,000. The shine has gone and now there are deals. The only color is steel gray, but some are doing extra paint jobs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Cybertruck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Cybertruck)
^ Bit of a pun there, BM, given that the bodywork of a Cybertruck is prone to rust, I believe. From the article you posted and some YouTube reviews I've seen, it looks like a vehicle with many flaws, and several recalls in its first year. Eye-catching, yes, but isn't it also a vehicle that more than any other is tied to its high-profile manufacturer ? That means that the truck's popularity may be connected to Elon Musk's popularity: as a car owner, that would make me uneasy.
If you own one, it seems to me like you are publicly declaring your acceptance of Elon Musk's vision of America -and that includes the freedom to manufacture vehicles that wouldn't pass safety standards in Europe. It's big and although it calls itself a pick-up, I don't suppose many people will use it as such, and if they do they'll realise that the stylish side-panels rising to the height of the cab roof are quite restricting. So, not a practical vehicle, but more like a tank, with its message to pedestrians and other road users: get out of my way, this vehicle has sharp edges and no crumple zones.
(*belatedly searches for soapbox emoji*)
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 03, 2025, 01:58 AM^ Bit of a pun there, BM, given that the bodywork of a Cybertruck is prone to rust, I believe. From the article you posted and some YouTube reviews I've seen, it looks like a vehicle with many flaws, and several recalls in its first year. Eye-catching, yes, but isn't it also a vehicle that more than any other is tied to its high-profile manufacturer ? That means that the truck's popularity may be connected to Elon Musk's popularity: as a car owner, that would make me uneasy.
If you own one, it seems to me like you are publicly declaring your acceptance of Elon Musk's vision of America -and that includes the freedom to manufacture vehicles that wouldn't pass safety standards in Europe. It's big and although it calls itself a pick-up, I don't suppose many people will use it as such, and if they do they'll realise that the stylish side-panels rising to the height of the cab roof are quite restricting. So, not a practical vehicle, but more like a tank, with its message to pedestrians and other road users: get out of my way, this vehicle has sharp edges and no crumple zones.
(*belatedly searches for soapbox emoji*)
I think you may be overthinking it Lisna, it more than likely is just a status symbol and a way for some dudes to peacock much like a similarly priced (but less eye-catching) luxury vehicle. I've been with my now wife for over 10 years now, so I've been out of the game for a bit - but I doubt
most women would want to be caught in something so ugly and gaudy as a Cybertruck, but maybe I'm out of touch.
When I buy a Macbook, I'm not necessarily "publicly declaring" my acceptance of Tim Cook's (or formerly Steve Job's) "vision of America" or anything nearly so lofty. The only thing being declared is that I liked the product enough to purchase it. Not everyone is in tune with politics like some of us are that everything they do can be read as a tacit political statement.
2024 was the first year in over a decade that Tesla saw a reduction in sales. 1% to 1.76M
Cybertruck has its own issues.
https://electrek.co/2025/01/02/tesla-cybertruck-sales-are-disastrous/?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=electrek/magazine/Electrek (https://electrek.co/2025/01/02/tesla-cybertruck-sales-are-disastrous/?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=electrek/magazine/Electrek)
But I think you're missing the point here, SGR, which is unusual for you. Steve Jobs or his Apple successor wasn't ever part of the incoming government, with a brief to basically strip the federal departments down to the bone, nor did either of them support so many crazy conspiracy theories. I think Lisna's right: in Musk's world, you're either for him or agin him, no middle ground, and buying one of his ugly Gerry Anderson-style behemoths is a tacit vote of support for him and by extension his policies. I know not everyone will feel that way, but it's like Spotify: once they endorsed Rogan I cancelled my subscription in protest, and will never go back. Did it make any difference? No, in fact it made my life as a reviewer harder as I have to now put up with YouTube ads. But it was me taking a tiny stand. So in the same way, not buying a CyberTank is, I think, a vote against both Tesla and Trump as well as Musk. Mark my words, they'll be everywhere this year, sporting the MAGA colours. Don't be surprised to see His Imperial Trumpness arrive to his inauguration in one!
^ "CyberTank" - nice one, Trollheart !
Perhaps I overstated those implications of ownership, SGR: maybe not every buyer was "publicly declaring acceptance...", but, as TH says, Elon Musk is visibly active in politics in a way that Steve Jobs, etc, never were. Also, I think your car says more about you (and to more people) than your choice of computer. Like it or not, CyberTank owners may find that fashion and/or politics will make them look foolish in the coming years.
There is one consolation for CyberTank enthusiasts, though: the Cybertruck isn't as disastrous as the Sinclair C5, which is a cautionary tale about innovative vehicle design from a manufacturer with a bunch of successes under his belt:-
Do you remember those being in the news, TH? You won't remember them for being on the road though, that's for sure ! I never saw one irl, and I'm not expecting to see a CyberTank either.
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 03, 2025, 03:19 AMBut I think you're missing the point here, SGR, which is unusual for you. Steve Jobs or his Apple successor wasn't ever part of the incoming government, with a brief to basically strip the federal departments down to the bone, nor did either of them support so many crazy conspiracy theories. I think Lisna's right: in Musk's world, you're either for him or agin him, no middle ground, and buying one of his ugly Gerry Anderson-style behemoths is a tacit vote of support for him and by extension his policies. I know not everyone will feel that way, but it's like Spotify: once they endorsed Rogan I cancelled my subscription in protest, and will never go back. Did it make any difference? No, in fact it made my life as a reviewer harder as I have to now put up with YouTube ads. But it was me taking a tiny stand. So in the same way, not buying a CyberTank is, I think, a vote against both Tesla and Trump as well as Musk. Mark my words, they'll be everywhere this year, sporting the MAGA colours. Don't be surprised to see His Imperial Trumpness arrive to his inauguration in one!
Like I said, not everyone (and I'd argue most people in America) is that politically in-tune, connecting all the dots between the CEO and corporate leadership of the company they do business with and their role (if any) in political initiatives - with the thought that they want to make some kind of difference or statement of support with their purchase. If you view voting with your wallet as an effective way to protest what you disagree with, more power to you. But to view everyone who's purchased a Cybertruck (which has been available for order since 2019) as some kind of conspiracy theorist or extreme budget hawk in complete lockstep political agreement with Elon Musk/Trump is completely silly.
When I see people purchasing a pint of Ben & Jerry's, I don't default to assuming they're some kind of progressive, climate-concerned, tree-hugging lefty, I just assume they like the ice cream. Because regardless of your political convictions, their ice cream is pretty damned good.
SGR: I imagine that you, me and TH all have a tendency to emphasise aspects that suit our arguments, while downplaying other details. In your latest post, for instance, I looked at this sentence:
Quote from: SGR on Jan 03, 2025, 04:11 AMLike I said, not everyone (and I'd argue most people in America) is that politically in-tune, connecting all the dots between the CEO and corporate leadership of the company they do business with and their role (if any) in political initiatives - with the thought that they want to make some kind of difference or statement of support with their purchase.
...then I wondered how "politically in-tune, connecting all the dots" you really need to be with regard to Musk and the CyberTruck. In fact you just have to dip into mainstream media occasionally, and the dots will be connected for you:-
(https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/4ba4974/2147483647/strip/true/crop/4800x2826+0+0/resize/1200x707!/format/webp/quality/75/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fc4%2F1e%2Fce52c4664170a7a1a047b7d89a9b%2Fhttps-delivery-gettyimages.com%2Fdownloads%2F1183845620)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IW5xSQWqC5Y/hq720.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEhCK4FEIIDSFryq4qpAxMIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJD&rs=AOn4CLAxTNR5pF1LgwdKUUWvM4BGNvT6mg)
Here's someone who connected the dots:- https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2024/06/0c6718fdefc9046c5bfc857125a60ba9-1024x576.jpg
QuoteIf you view voting with your wallet as an effective way to protest what you disagree with, more power to you. But to view everyone who's purchased a Cybertruck (which has been available for order since 2019) as some kind of conspiracy theorist or extreme budget hawk in complete lockstep political agreement with Elon Musk/Trump is completely silly.
^ I don't think either TH or me are making that claim exactly.
QuoteWhen I see people purchasing a pint of Ben & Jerry's, I don't default to assuming they're some kind of progressive, climate-concerned, tree-hugging lefty, I just assume they like the ice cream. Because regardless of your political convictions, their ice cream is pretty damned good.
^ I've also read that it's popular on account of its quality, so your attitude is very sensible. :thumb:
...and on the topic of boycotts, that you mention earlier, ("more power to you"), I think they may be fairly commonplace. I have friends who avoid brands like Nestlé (aggressively suggesting in Africa that powdered milk is better for a baby than breast-feeding), and another friend who uses this website:-
https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns
Also, plenty of religious and other groups use the tool of boycotting. As a child, I remember the Catholic church boycotting this or that example of the Devil's work - and I bet someone somewhere is boycotting Ben&Jerry's, so watch out next time you're picking up some icecream ;)
It's hard to say of course, as I know/knew nothing about these Cyber Battle Tanks until yesterday, but the B&J comparison is good in a way, as you said: "Their ice-cream is very good." Isn't the case that the CBT (now there's an acronym Musky won't want associated with his vehicles!) :laughing: is NOT good? It can't give good mileage (2 to the gallon?), it must be a bitch parking (all those other cars, or former cars, on which to leave notes SORRY I CRUSHED YOUR INFERIOR VEHICLE DUDE! BUY TESLA!) is ugly as sin and I imagine not too easy to insure ("You want to insure WHAT? Are you going back to Iraq? I see... a Glock, pointed at my kneecaps. You make a good point, sir. Sarah! Where are those insurance forms? Uh, quick as you can, love!") and then, to add to that, you have to fucking advertise for Musk as his damned company name is on the thing! So overall, not many pluses I would think, and somewhat like a Hummer, no real reason to buy one (and less now surely with the explosion)?
As for C5s, Lisna, I never saw one (anyone driving/riding/pushing/pulling one of those around here would have been laughed at by kids on trikes and quads) but I certainly heard of them. Didn't Sir Clive also invent the ZX Spectrum? Case proven, I think.
And no, SGR, I wasn't making that point you bolded, but like the clothes we wear, and as Lisna says, these days and especially in America, you are what you drive.
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 03, 2025, 04:28 PMSGR: I imagine that you, me and TH all have a tendency to emphasise aspects that suit our arguments, while downplaying other details. In your latest post, for instance, I looked at this sentence:
...then I wondered how "politically in-tune, connecting all the dots" you really need to be with regard to Musk and the CyberTruck. In fact you just have to dip into mainstream media occasionally, and the dots will be connected for you:-
(https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/4ba4974/2147483647/strip/true/crop/4800x2826+0+0/resize/1200x707!/format/webp/quality/75/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fc4%2F1e%2Fce52c4664170a7a1a047b7d89a9b%2Fhttps-delivery-gettyimages.com%2Fdownloads%2F1183845620)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IW5xSQWqC5Y/hq720.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEhCK4FEIIDSFryq4qpAxMIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJD&rs=AOn4CLAxTNR5pF1LgwdKUUWvM4BGNvT6mg)
Here's someone who connected the dots:- https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2024/06/0c6718fdefc9046c5bfc857125a60ba9-1024x576.jpg
^ I don't think either TH or me are making that claim exactly.
^ I've also read that it's popular on account of its quality, so your attitude is very sensible. :thumb:
...and on the topic of boycotts, that you mention earlier, ("more power to you"), I think they may be fairly commonplace. I have friends who avoid brands like Nestlé (aggressively suggesting in Africa that powdered milk is better for a baby than breast-feeding), and another friend who uses this website:-
https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns
Also, plenty of religious and other groups use the tool of boycotting. As a child, I remember the Catholic church boycotting this or that example of the Devil's work - and I bet someone somewhere is boycotting Ben&Jerry's, so watch out next time you're picking up some icecream ;)
That's fair - I will say, to one of your previous points that your choice of vehicle can say a lot about you does ring true in my mind with stereotypes and snap judgements as you see certian vehicles (which are often times not fair). Which of course, I have in my mind as well with certain vehicles. I think we're probably talking about a similar thing, but with an obnoxiously showy vehicle like a cybertruck, I'd guess it appeals more to an individual's personal vanity, rather than to their political beliefs or deference to/knowledge of Elon Musk's personal politics. The "Look at me! Look at how big and imposing my vehicle is! Look at how unique it is and how it sticks out like a sore thumb in the parking lot!" - and then of course they'll have practical justifications to explain all the benefits they have with the vehicle and why they just
had to have it. Back to the peacocking thing I mentioned earlier, that is an assumption I'd make of a Cybertruck owner/driver, similar to how you might make the assumption about their politics. It's not that different I suppose; it's probably a similar demographic to the type of people who ride around in big loud lifted trucks that are so clean, you know they're rarely ever used for real work - except the cybertruck appeals to the "tech bro" niche of this demographic who would love to tell you their predictions for which cryptocurrency is going to see big gains this year and which recent AI tech has impressed them. :laughing:
I just don't think it's as accurate a proxy for someone's political beliefs as you and Trolls seem to. Consumerism in America > political awareness, so to say. Even if you might think: "How could one NOT know how involved Elon Musk has been in Trump's campaign, and the personal role he's going to play in the upcoming administration", don't forget this little nugget of knowledge we got after the election - a lot of Americans are just very politically tuned-out (and we're worse off for that) - and also, I'm sure there's plenty of Tesla owners who really like the product and the brand, but aren't exactly Musk's biggest cheerleaders:
'Did Joe Biden drop out?' Google searches spiked in key states on Election Day (https://www.fox9.com/news/biden-drop-out-search-election-states)While we're on the subject, here's a rather humorous video about stereotypes of Cybertruck owners :laughing: .
I'm with SGR on the tuned out Americans issue. Many may vaguely know about the connection, but it's deep in the recesses of consciousness, and it simply would not occur to them that they could express a political position by their choice of vehicle. And if it did occur to them they'd be more likely than not to dismiss it in favor of their personal preferences.
I spent three Saturday mornings knocking on doors for the D get out the vote operation, knocking on the doors of only registered Ds and was amazed at how many were unaware of early voting that has been around for years.
You're probably both right. However, what is not in doubt is that the video SGR posted is fucking hilarious! :laughing:
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 03, 2025, 06:40 PMYou're probably both right. However, what is not in doubt is that the video SGR posted is fucking hilarious! :laughing:
^ Ditto on that,
TH - in fact his whole post is really good, with the paragraph of wild pre-judgements we are inclined to make about people driving "obnoxiously showy vehicles". :laughing:
Good for you,
BM, working to promote dees both big and small: democracy and Democrats. I still find it difficult to comprehend just how disconnected from their politics some people are, which must 've made your efforts dispiriting at times.
And that was a great quote in one of
SGR's recent posts: "
People don't want to be informed, they want to feel informed." That right there is the motivation behind a zillion conspiracy theories!
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 04, 2025, 12:27 AMGood for you, BM, working to promote dees both big and small: democracy and Democrats. I still find it difficult to comprehend just how disconnected from their politics some people are, which must 've made your efforts dispiriting at times.
It was so dispiriting that I only did one door knocking shift for Kamala leading up to the election. I couldn't muster the energy to go hard one unpaid and two for the amount of apathy and general misinformation or lack of knowledge voters had. Also sticking point for me was hearing more daily about Israel going wild in the middle east and attacking Lebanon with Harris being quiet as a mouse during that time. I'm like no, I can't do this.
Also my main objective while talking to voters was to get them to vote for Harris on the working families party line so we can save that line in NY state but even that objective wasn't enough for me to put up with the negatives. Fortunately we did make it and got enough votes to save the line.
Well, shock! Horror! No demonstrations/attacks/riots/insurrections! I'll be damned!
Congress ratifies Trump's win (https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2025/0106/1489321-trump-us-capitol/)
...but also a missed opportunity, imo:
I think he should've done much more to remind those GOP senators of their conduct: how they had to run from rioters 4 yrs ago, and how they didn't have the courage to call out Trump and MAGA for what they did. I would've gone hard on how the Capitol Police suffered 4 yrs ago, and how the the GOP raced, not to support the police who protected them, but to whitewash Trump. I would've compared their contemptable response to what the Brazilians did with Bolsonaro, the so-called "Brazilian Trump". He also rejected an election result he didn't like, but:-
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/brazil-jair-bolsonaro-barred-running-office-electronic-voting-court-rcna92160
Quote"Far-right former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was barred Friday from running for office again until 2030 after a panel of judges concluded that he abused his power and cast unfounded doubts on the country's electronic voting system.
The decision upends the 68-year-old's political future and likely erases any chance for him to regain power."
But that's the GOP and Supreme Court today: ethics that are sub-Brazilian.
At least they had the balls to ban him from running again. Our congress is slow and feckless
Frani hit the nail on the head with this commentary.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 07, 2025, 06:38 AMAt least they had the balls to ban him from running again. Our congress is slow and feckless
Frani hit the nail on the head with this commentary.
Definitely hit on some true points in this video. Biden himself regrets appointing Merrick Garland as he was slow-walking the cases against Trump. I could be wrong, but I feel like it was done that way in an effort to try and avoid the optics of looking like 'political persecution' (instead of just prosecution), but Republicans and right-aligned media were able to sell it successfully as that anyways, so nothing at all appears to have been gained in retrospect besides criticism, derision and failure. He might end up being remembered in a similar fashion as Comey, but for different reasons.
Her last point seems to ring true in many ways: "Resistance liberalism has always been about branding, and not about action. In other words, no one is here to save us from fascism, except ourselves" - to her point, talk about whiplash from the Dems' campaign messaging to now. In the run-up to the election, they offered grave warnings of Trump being a fascist, a threat to democracy, an authoritarian, etc. And now that he's won, they're spending time patting themselves on the back for what good, well-behaved losers they are and how much they love and respect the institutions that spelled their own defeat to a twice-impeached felon who tried to overturn the last election. At the very least, like Lisna said, Hakeem Jeffries could've given a little more import to how much he disagrees, politically and morally, with Donald Trump and the GOP's actions while providing the proper weight to the idea that while he abides by the decisions of the voters, he (and other Democrats) don't need to pretend that this is just business as usual. It makes his flub during his recent speech all the more funny:
https://x.com/nypost/status/1875290055196987758
"...dickless custodians of the status quo..."
:laughing: That's a great phrase from Frani, and pretty accurate when you consider how Trump has escaped, effectively unscathed. It's a sad America where it takes private citizen E.Jean Carroll to do what the Senate, DOJ and Supreme Court can't: hold Trump accountable.
Yep, that verbal blunder from H Jeffries will be around for a while I suspect.
But you are right, SGR, about Merrick Garland: he proved himself unequal to his job,and coupled with the slow-moving and corrupt judicial system (those indefensible Supreme Court delays, Eileen Cannon, etc) America was cheated of timely justice. Now we wait and see how bad the consequences of that institutional failure will be.
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 07, 2025, 02:08 AMWell, shock! Horror! No demonstrations/attacks/riots/insurrections! I'll be damned!
Congress ratifies Trump's win (https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2025/0106/1489321-trump-us-capitol/)
there's part of me that thinks we should have done so.
Democracy is a losing strategy at this point. If you have a 2 party system where one of the two sides respects the results of elections and the other side only does so if they win, that's a rigged game. You are bound to lose out over time.
Increasingly, I'm seeing pundits on the Dem side come to the conclusion that trying to be the party that upholds the "norms and institutions" is not only something the voters don't care about, it's also just tying your hands behind your back to try to adhere to a standard the other side doesn't. Maybe eventually they will come to realize that the same applies to respecting election results and thus democracy in general. Or maybe I'm missing something but that seems pretty apparent from my pov.
Quote from: SGR on Jan 07, 2025, 05:25 PMDefinitely hit on some true points in this video. Biden himself regrets appointing Merrick Garland as he was slow-walking the cases against Trump. I could be wrong, but I feel like it was done that way in an effort to try and avoid the optics of looking like 'political persecution' (instead of just prosecution), but Republicans and right-aligned media were able to sell it successfully as that anyways, so nothing at all appears to have been gained in retrospect besides criticism, derision and failure. He might end up being remembered in a similar fashion as Comey, but for different reasons.
Her last point seems to ring true in many ways: "Resistance liberalism has always been about branding, and not about action. In other words, no one is here to save us from fascism, except ourselves" - to her point, talk about whiplash from the Dems' campaign messaging to now. In the run-up to the election, they offered grave warnings of Trump being a fascist, a threat to democracy, an authoritarian, etc. And now that he's won, they're spending time patting themselves on the back for what good, well-behaved losers they are and how much they love and respect the institutions that spelled their own defeat to a twice-impeached felon who tried to overturn the last election. At the very least, like Lisna said, Hakeem Jeffries could've given a little more import to how much he disagrees, politically and morally, with Donald Trump and the GOP's actions while providing the proper weight to the idea that while he abides by the decisions of the voters, he (and other Democrats) don't need to pretend that this is just business as usual. It makes his flub during his recent speech all the more funny:
https://x.com/nypost/status/1875290055196987758
Yeah, the patting ourselves on the back for being good losers is spot on. And the reason they are not revolting has nothing to do with the Trump threat not being real. People have revolted for much less, as we saw the last time around. They just need something or someone to rally around that they actually believe in. The problem with appealing to abstract norms and institutions, and the threat that Trump is said to pose to them, is nobody knows or cares about why or how these institutions and the norms that govern them even matter in the first place. The same thing with fascism. Nobody really knows or cares what that word means. It's a vague sort of blanket term for anyone you think has authoritarian tendencies, and since the only dictator anyone even remembers in this country is Hitler, basically it just gets translated as Trump is Hitler. So then the question you're posing seems obvious: if it's Hitler then why go silently into the night?
The reality is that the emergence of a kind of authoritarianism in the US, if it were to come to pass, is probably going to be a lot more nuanced and difficult to assess. It seems like a more likely scenario is one where the norms and guardrails that check the power of the executive are eroded over time, than something as drastic and immediate as Hitler's enabling act. So how do you resist something like that? Especially if it's a concern that can't really be easily articulated for the public?
Like,
@Lisnaholic I hate to be the party pooper, but whose mind is going to be changed by Hakim Jeffries going over the horrors of Jan 6th for the 1000th time? Anyone who cares has already heard about it. I don't know what to tell you. You want the American people to be outraged enough for this to be a deal breaker, but it just isn't. It's time to come to terms with that. 4 years have passed. People aren't going to get more amped up about it than they already have.
What a Democrat brings to a fight
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a5/6b/cc/a56bcc20cb244e2ec07bad8ad67f3e9a.jpg)
What a Republican brings to a fight
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/prDq1E8vFso/maxresdefault.jpg)
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 07, 2025, 10:23 PMWhat a Democrat brings to a fight
What a Republican brings to a fight
Quote from: Jwb on Jan 07, 2025, 06:35 PMDemocracy is a losing strategy at this point. If you have a 2 party system where one of the two sides respects the results of elections and the other side only does so if they win, that's a rigged game. You are bound to lose out over time.
Quote from: Jwb on Jan 07, 2025, 06:35 PMthere's part of me that thinks we should have done so.
Democracy is a losing strategy at this point. If you have a 2 party system where one of the two sides respects the results of elections and the other side only does so if they win, that's a rigged game. You are bound to lose out over time.
Increasingly, I'm seeing pundits on the Dem side come to the conclusion that trying to be the party that upholds the "norms and institutions" is not only something the voters don't care about, it's also just tying your hands behind your back to try to adhere to a standard the other side doesn't. Maybe eventually they will come to realize that the same applies to respecting election results and thus democracy in general. Or maybe I'm missing something but that seems pretty apparent from my pov.
I'm sympathetic to this point of view, but also to the opposite. If the game isn't protected, then there's nothing to play for. More important than healthcare policy and taxes is the sanctity of elections.
It's true to say though also if one team plays without a goalkeeper the other team is going to win. Or, insert your own sporting analogy. Nice guys finish last. Just ask me.
Sure, you'd probably refuse to play if you knew the other side was bribing the refs.
But to be fair the Dems pulled the goalie early on their own.
Quote from: Jwb on Jan 07, 2025, 07:45 PMLike, @Lisnaholic I hate to be the party pooper, but whose mind is going to be changed by Hakim Jeffries going over the horrors of Jan 6th for the 1000th time? Anyone who cares has already heard about it. I don't know what to tell you. You want the American people to be outraged enough for this to be a deal breaker, but it just isn't. It's time to come to terms with that. 4 years have passed. People aren't going to get more amped up about it than they already have.
^ It's true that I'm disappointed that more of the electorate haven't voted their outrage at all the election denialism, fake elector scams, etc, but Hakim Jeffries wasn't making a campaign speech for the Dems. It wasn't necessary for him to fire up outrage anew, but he missed a chance to put on record the facts: how democracy was put at risk during the last hand-over of power and how this latest hand-over is restoring the tradition of it being done peacefully.
Perhaps people are tired of hearing about the famous Jan 6th, but I don't like your alternative, which seems to be "let's forget about it and move on". I don't think that's a good response because it plays into the process of normalising things that shouldn't be normalised.
Quote from: Jwb on Jan 07, 2025, 06:35 PMDemocracy is a losing strategy at this point. If you have a 2 party system where one of the two sides respects the results of elections and the other side only does so if they win, that's a rigged game. You are bound to lose out over time.
Increasingly, I'm seeing pundits on the Dem side come to the conclusion that trying to be the party that upholds the "norms and institutions" is not only something the voters don't care about, it's also just tying your hands behind your back to try to adhere to a standard the other side doesn't. Maybe eventually they will come to realize that the same applies to respecting election results and thus democracy in general. Or maybe I'm missing something but that seems pretty apparent from my pov.
^ Is it really?! I don't think so, and it certainly shouldn't be - even though it's true that so much is rigged in favour of the GOP, with all the weird gerrymandering and electoral college distribution, for example. Still, I think it's important for Dems to uphold those "norms and institutions" you mention, to show the American people that there is an alternative to the GOP. At the moment the Dems look sadly hampered by their "fair play" approach, but things could change: the electorate could get fed up during the next four years and if the Dems can claim some moral high ground in adhering to democracy, that will be an important rallying cry, rather than offering "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Jan 04, 2025, 12:27 AM^ Ditto on that, TH - in fact his whole post is really good, with the paragraph of wild pre-judgements we are inclined to make about people driving "obnoxiously showy vehicles". :laughing:
Good for you, BM, working to promote dees both big and small: democracy and Democrats. I still find it difficult to comprehend just how disconnected from their politics some people are, which must 've made your efforts dispiriting at times.
And that was a great quote in one of SGR's recent posts: "People don't want to be informed, they want to feel informed." That right there is the motivation behind a zillion conspiracy theories!
I promote dees too.
Dees nuts!
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/762c7db60636150d8d87f1dbfeabecfb/d4d64c931b35b5cc-cc/s540x810/b0e22a0c8b935464661f6e9ce4f96ecd0729ecef.gifv)
The circus rolls into town!
(https://img.rasset.ie/0021aac3-500.jpg)
Trump threatens the sovereignty of Greenland! Where are the Vikings when you need them? (https://www.rte.ie/news/2025/0108/1489651-greenland-trump/)
(https://i.ibb.co/0XktW2p/8365b5a8-a879-4709-a032-b0781daf2b92.jpg)
In case anyone's interested to know what MAGA thinks about cities burning and Americans dying.
You've got to give the guy credit though. Being actually able to rearrange TWO of the THREE letters in a word, to make a pun! I mean, it's practically on a Rain Man scale! :laughing:
From Jimmy Carter's funeral service today:
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2025/01/09/15/93917133-14267105-image-a-22_1736435454147.jpg)
Obama: "Y'know, if it wasn't for me and that damn birth certificate, you wouldn't have even made it in politics..."
(https://preview.redd.it/trump-cracking-up-obama-v0-gezh6ij1qzbe1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=c89187cbe2168e0795680a4e81b9a9b16c30600f)
DJT: "And then I said 'Why don't we call it the Gulf of America, instead? Wouldn't that be nice?!' I'm serious though, I really thought Kamala was you in a wig for at least a month..."
I love the fact that he is moaning about the flags being at half-staff for Carter's passing for 30 days, meaning they will still be that way for his inauguration. Making it all about himself as usual. It all starts here, folks! ::)
The Supremes just refused to halt Trump's sentencing on Jan 10. This means he will formally be branded a felon before he takes office, and will have X # of days to appeal, which will make news during his term.
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 10, 2025, 12:31 AMI love the fact that he is moaning about the flags being at half-staff for Carter's passing for 30 days, meaning they will still be that way for his inauguration. Making it all about himself as usual. It all starts here, folks! ::)
The symbolism of the flags being at half-staff in the U.S. when he's sworn in as President is pretty funny, though. :laughing:
It is. Almost like Carter giving a final departing finger to the Republicans from beyond the grave! :laughing: :laughing:
Watch George Dubaya ignore Trump and give Obama a slap.
https://x.com/reesejgorman/status/1877386631482671579?s=46&mx=2 (https://x.com/reesejgorman/status/1877386631482671579?s=46&mx=2)
(https://x.com/reesejgorman/status/1877386631482671579?s=46&mx=2)
So, it seems there is precedent between Denmark and the US for exchange of land for money. The following is an answer provided by Open AI's new o1 model...
Quote"The Danish West Indies—comprising the islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix—were sold by Denmark to the United States in 1917. After decades of on-and-off negotiations between the two countries, the U.S. and Denmark signed the Treaty of the Danish West Indies on August 4, 1916, and the formal transfer took place on March 31, 1917. The purchase price was $25 million in gold." (o1)
The strategic significance of Greenland...
https://www.twz.com/news-features/why-greenland-is-of-growing-strategic-significance (https://www.twz.com/news-features/why-greenland-is-of-growing-strategic-significance)
I'm starting to feel Trumpish already... :laughing:
How Canada would rank as the 51st state.
(https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-canada-would-rank-as-the-51st-state/)https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-canada-would-rank-as-the-51st-state/ (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-canada-would-rank-as-the-51st-state/)
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Jan 10, 2025, 06:55 PMSo, it seems their is precedent between Denmark and the US for exchange of land for money. The following is an answer provided by Open AI's new o1 model...
The strategic significance of Greenland...
https://www.twz.com/news-features/why-greenland-is-of-growing-strategic-significance (https://www.twz.com/news-features/why-greenland-is-of-growing-strategic-significance)
I'm starting to feel Trumpish already... :laughing:
I didn't know this until I looked into it recently, but apparently there's a fair bit of history to the US trying to acquire Greenland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_the_United_States_to_purchase_Greenland).
QuoteSince the 19th century, the United States has considered, and made, several attempts to purchase the island of Greenland from Denmark, as it did with the Danish West Indies in 1917. Internal discussions within the United States Government about acquiring Greenland notably occurred in 1867, 1910, 1946, and 2019, and acquisition has been advocated by former American secretaries of state William H. Seward and James F. Byrnes, privately by former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, and publicly by President Donald Trump, among others. After World War II, the United States secretly offered to buy Greenland; public discussion of buying the island occurred after Trump's 2024 reelection.
^^^ Oops! When I was trying to edit a misspelling in my own post, I think I inadvertently reported yours to a moderator.
I have a big stack of IOU's maybe I could give one...
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Jan 10, 2025, 07:59 PM^^^ Oops! When I was trying to edit a misspelling in my own post, I think I inadvertently reported yours to a moderator.
I have a big stack of IOU's maybe I could give one...
lol it's all good, no big deal! :)
Some interesting and slightly amusing information about the founding of Greenland, from my history of America journal (plug, plug!)
(https://cdn.britannica.com/53/164153-050-98C7AECC/book-woodcut-Erik-the-Red-Iceland-1688.jpg?w=400&h=300&c=crop)
Red, White and Green: Erik the Red and the Flotation of Greenland
Life could be tough for Vikings around the tenth century. Known as vicious marauders who would quite literally kill you as soon as look at you, they worshipped the fierce Norse gods Odin (or Woden), Thor and Loki, and believed the only way to die with honour was in battle yadda yadda but eventually all of this killing, pillaging, plundering and stomping about became tiring, and Vikings began to consider a change of god, the Christian one looking a decent substitute. Which is to say, by the tenth century most Norse had converted to Christianity, given up the plundering, pillaging and fighting (perhaps indulging in the odd rape, but sure you can't expect a man to change overnight can you now?) and settled down to be farmers and traders.
That's all very well and good. As most warrior civilisations have found out down through history, that sort of full-on-us-against-the-world attitude can't last, and as you get older as a people you need to have the odd breather, these becoming longer and more frequent till eventually you say "Ah fuck it! I'm not going plundering today. There's Goldfinger on the telly!" or words to that effect, Basically, all warrior peoples go one of two ways: they settle down and ditch the warrior ways or they warrior themselves right out of existence. So the Norse chose the first option, and life became a lot easier and quite possibly better.
Except for poor Erik the Red, that is.
Erik was born in Norway but his father was exiled to Iceland for manslaughter. Now, in the good old days of the "real" Vikings, this would have engendered likely nothing more than a few grins down the local and a round of beers, clapped shoulders all round and maybe one or two guys might fight it out to the death, just for the hell of it, as Vikings did. In fact, it's not widely known (since I made it up but it could have been true) that a Viking heading down to the Axe and Sword for a quiet twenty pints or so with the lads might growl to his wife "I'll be back at sunrise, unless I get killed, in which case make sure my sons have a father. Cheers love!" A night on the razz in downtown Oslo or Bergen could be a dangerous affair.
But after the Christian God was adopted the kind of harmless fun Vikings had been known to indulge in became illegal, murder even, and thus Thorvald, Erik's dad, was kicked out of Norway for explaining the finer points of his argument with, well, the finer points of a battleaxe maybe. Not wishing to be outdone, Erik too got himself exiled. See, neither Erik nor his old man had accepted Jesus into their lives. In fact, they told the shocked priests just exactly where Jesus could stick his eternal salvation and brotherhood to all men, and further, went on to say that if he and Erik could find their way into the Kingdom of Heaven, they would be sure to ransack it and carry off as many angels as one man could manage.
In other words, Thorvald remained a staunch supporter of Odin, and when Erik followed in his dad's footsteps his wife, a true Christian now, told him she'd be damned (literally) if she would lie with a pagan, and that if he wanted some he had better make with the holy water and that sign of the cross that was becoming so popular, adding that she was sure Mrs. Sharpaxe at number seven didn't have this trouble with her husband, who converted dutifully when told to, nor even Mrs. Wolfclaw, who she had never liked but at least knew how to keep her man in line. How, she may have wailed, could Erik embarrass and scandalise her so? Clinging to outmoded beliefs, talking about Valhalla as if it existed, when everyone knew that the only real place you went when you died was Heaven? Did he realise that everyone was laughing at him?
Erik may have realised, but did not care, and so when - possibly due to having been forced into celibacy - he took exception to his neighbour killing all his slaves, and addressed his concerns by killing said neighbour, the council of elders shook their heads and said come on now, this isn't the seventh century you know Erik. Perhaps a spell in that undiscovered land to the southwest is just what you need, yeah the one with no name. Off you go, and don't come back for, oh, let's say three years.
And off he went. The land he was exiled to turned out to be pretty much the same as Iceland, but in a move worthy of the greatest spindoctors and PR executives today, and completely ignoring the fact that it was a total lie, Erik named the new land Greenland, and began trying to attract settlers. Many of them, perhaps fed up with the Christian god and his incessant bans on just about everything that was enjoyable, to say nothing of that fucking Latin they had to listen to, joined him. It's not recorded what the first would-be settlers to arrive there had to say on seeing what they had invested in, but it's a fair bet that it would have gone along the basic lines of "Fuck me! Where's all this green then? Don't see much of that. White we got, grey too. No green though. You sure you named this place properly, Erik me old son? Did you maybe mean Greyland?"
As an aside, you have to laugh at the names these guys either gave themselves or were given. Erik's neighbour, to whom he was most un-neighbourly, was known as Eyjolf the Foul, and one of the men who rose against Erik later in the ensuing dispute went by Thorad the Yeller (I'm going to assume that meant he shouted loudly, not that he was a coward). But what did Erik the Red have to do with the exploration of America? Well, nothing actually, but his son sure did.
Nice enrichment, Trolls! Reading your post ended up sending me down a Wikipedia rabbit hole about vikings. :laughing:
Did you ever hear about Leif Ericson's encounter with sasquatch (https://sasquatchchronicles.com/the-oldest-account-of-bigfoot-was-recorded-in-986-ad/)?
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/1QjzdN6Q3HTrwqmKGH/200.gif?cid=6c09b9522g04kggwugt8k8h4x9hzarskpcacmeaiib32kt2f&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.gif&ct=g)
Greenland's leader ready to talk to Trump (https://www.reuters.com/world/greenland-leader-says-everyone-should-respect-islands-wish-independence-2025-01-10/)
Trump should send Rick Harrison to negotiate.
(https://c.tenor.com/tzPdRqRnIusAAAAC/rick-harrison-rick.gif)
Yeah I can just hear Rick now: "No, that's the best I can do. I won't go a dollar more. Listen, I'm taking all the risk here. I have to feed these people, get them fuel, sort out their government: it's a lot of work. If we can't do business today, maybe put Greenland in an auction, but those fees will crucify you. Hey, if you change your mind I'm always here!"
:laughing:
It's all a troll.
Maybe Americans have voted Trump because he's so annoying. "you didn't listen to us now you get this guy".
Except they didn't so much throw a brick through the window as bake a cake for the oligarchy.
"I'm the president of the United States, and I'm suing the United States" :laughing:
Trump's new official presidential portrait was released - here's a side by side of his 2017 one with his new 2025 one:
(https://media.scored.co/post/Wk6SxD3liuM0.jpeg)
I was trying to figure out what it reminded me of...and then it hit me...the Hank/Dean Norris meme :laughing:
(https://preview.redd.it/y7im8a0ikps61.png?auto=webp&s=06f6b118249a61ceecc2dfc5fc8afb2b38e90424)
That face says "You thought it was bad the first time I was in power, motherfuckers? To quote some old white rockers, you ain't seen nothin' yet!"
The new one looks like he just got hit with some wicked stomach cramps.
The new one is just begging for someone with graphics skills to paint in some flames and a pitchfork! Maybe turn him into Pinhead! :laughing:
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 17, 2025, 04:35 AMThe new one is just begging for someone with graphics skills to paint in some flames and a pitchfork! Maybe turn him into Pinhead! :laughing:
Your wish is my command. :)
(https://i.ibb.co/Yc3SffW/Brandschutz-Feuer-900x900px.jpg)
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Jan 17, 2025, 04:52 AMYour wish is my command. :)
(https://i.ibb.co/Yc3SffW/Brandschutz-Feuer-900x900px.jpg)
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/ODofCyJUSRoDBH8lKe/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952towmslg9w1zlq0a72yf7ziulkc1u4tmlyscn901d&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Totally brilliant! :laughing:
Bill Gates had 'intriguing' three-hour dinner with Trump: 'I was frankly impressed' (https://nypost.com/2025/01/17/us-news/bill-gates-frankly-impressed-after-3-hour-dinner-with-trump/)
Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jan 17, 2025, 10:04 PMBill Gates had 'intriguing' three-hour dinner with Trump: 'I was frankly impressed' (https://nypost.com/2025/01/17/us-news/bill-gates-frankly-impressed-after-3-hour-dinner-with-trump/)
Gotta keep those antitrust investigations at bay, and that government contract money to continue flowing somehow :laughing:
Rosanne came out of hiding for this. :laughing:
He needs to do one of those cringy collab songs with Jordan Peterson next. If he's gonna keep making them I at least want to hear one with Canadian Kermit spitting the worst bars ever written
Candace Owens should get a collab as well.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 18, 2025, 12:03 AMCandace Owens should get a collab as well.
fuck it, daily wire posse cut
Something's off with those "official" photos, no red ties...
Quote"He should get the Nobel Peace Prize," Rep. Joe Wilson told us of Trump's role in the ceasefire deal.
(As for Biden, when a reporter asked if Trump should get credit for the deal, the president retorted: "Is that a joke?")
Quote from: SGR on Jan 17, 2025, 10:23 PMGotta keep those antitrust investigations at bay, and that government contract money to continue flowing somehow :laughing:
They're all getting aboard the Trump train now...
Meet The Billionaires Attending Trump's Inauguration: Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos And More (https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2025/01/15/meet-the-billionaires-attending-trumps-inauguration-musk-zuckerberg-bezos-and-more/)
It's believed in media circles that the primary reason the inauguration was moved indoors had less to do with the comfort of attendees and more to do with Trump's wishes to prevent TV cameras from showing and comparing a smaller crowd on the mall.
It's gonna be brick outside with the wind. That's a good enough reason to have it inside.
A little history from the wonderful Mr. Beat to prepare for the Inaugural Address
At Trump's freewheeling Mar-a-Lago, allies jockey for jobs, tee times and a spot on the buffet line (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-transition-mar-a-lago-jobs-tee-times/)
With cocktails and Snoop Dogg, crypto industry celebrates Trump inauguration (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/with-cocktails-snoop-dogg-crypto-industry-celebrates-trump-inauguration-2025-01-18/)
Trump will rename Gulf of Mexico to 'Gulf of America' among 1st executive orders (https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-rename-gulf-mexico-gulf-america-1st-executive/story?id=117886074)
Trump's inaugural address.
Trump already slapped his latest official portrait on the POTUS Twitter account :laughing:
https://x.com/POTUS/status/1881408246067744887?mx=2
I'm not watching his speech. It's FDT for the next four years.
Trump is set to declare a national energy emergency to exploit Alaska's resources.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5095220-trump-day-one-energy-environment-orders/ (https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5095220-trump-day-one-energy-environment-orders/)
The last two Alaska oil auctions under Biden, attracted a combined "zero" bids.
I like that Biden was able to pardon in advance all or most of the people Trump is going to go after, like Fauci and Milley. I bet the bastard is fuming, but there's nothing he can do. Unless he tries to draft legislation to allow a sitting president to overturn the pardons of other presidents, and then where will he be when his term comes to an end? Go Joe! A final fuck-you to the incoming POTUS! Makes up for the cunt not having the decency to show you around the White House when he was kicked out by the voters.
On another note, can someone explain to me how Trump is going to reverse the trend on electric cars, when his bestest buddy in the whole goshdarned wide world runs an empire based on the sale of expensive electric cars?? Elon no like.
Presidential pardons only cover Federal crimes, not state crimes. So if any of them committed crimes at the state level, they can still be charged and prosecuted and, if found guilty, sentenced.
Preemptive pardons, when no charges have even been put forth, just make the recipient look shady as hell in my opinion.
Not really. When Trump is basically waiting down a dark alley with a baseball bat, has effectively sent threatening letters, I think Biden's response was the right one: get their protection in before Trump tries to bring the hammer down. If someone called to your house showing a gun on their hip and said "I'll be back later" and someone in power offered to help you, would you not think it right that they did? I know that's really watering down the situation, but the general precepts fit: if your friends or allies are threatened with retribution and you're in a position to help, why would you not? Who cares about the optics, especially if you're leaving office?
You want to talk about shady pardons?
https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2025/0121/1491950-us-politics/
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 21, 2025, 02:36 AMI like that Biden was able to pardon in advance all or most of the people Trump is going to go after, like Fauci and Milley. I bet the bastard is fuming, but there's nothing he can do. Unless he tries to draft legislation to allow a sitting president to overturn the pardons of other presidents, and then where will he be when his term comes to an end? Go Joe! A final fuck-you to the incoming POTUS! Makes up for the cunt not having the decency to show you around the White House when he was kicked out by the voters.
On another note, can someone explain to me how Trump is going to reverse the trend on electric cars, when his bestest buddy in the whole goshdarned wide world runs an empire based on the sale of expensive electric cars?? Elon no like.
Elon has been advocating for the removal of EV subsidies in the US, and doing the opposite in other countries. Reason? On a per vehicle .
basis Tesla is much more profitable in the US than any other manufacturer. Take the $7,500 subsidy away and Tesla still makes a profit while everyone else is incurring losses
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-vs-Toyota-BYD-VW-and-Ford-profit-margins-get-visualized-as-GM-trails-it-four-to-one.691126.0.html (https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-vs-Toyota-BYD-VW-and-Ford-profit-margins-get-visualized-as-GM-trails-it-four-to-one.691126.0.html)
Every clip I see of Baron Trump at the inauguration he looks like Draco Malfoy after he's forced to be a death eater.
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Jan 21, 2025, 08:45 PMEvery clip I see of Baron Trump at the inauguration he looks like Draco Malfoy after he's forced to be a death eater.
(https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/indiatoday/2025-01/GIF_5_0.gif?VersionId=RQE_DOXWdWG6EFUbgkVIUUMW3ME5P_WW&size=690:388)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d6/7f/d8/d67fd8fee7f8d2623fb2fda6af80d843.gif)
I see it.
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 21, 2025, 07:50 PMYou want to talk about shady pardons?
https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2025/0121/1491950-us-politics/
(https://i.postimg.cc/136YgNRV/QAS.png)
NOW I AM GONNA BUY SOME MOTHA FUCKIN GUNS!!! (https://x.com/AmericaShaman/status/1881522212009840989)
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Jan 21, 2025, 08:45 PMEvery clip I see of Baron Trump at the inauguration he looks like Draco Malfoy after he's forced to be a death eater.
I understand no part of this sentence. ???
And it's
Emperor Trump, if you don't mind. A piffling baron indeed! (The Orange Baron?)
(https://media.tenor.com/Pyj0QovulVAAAAAM/clowns-imagination.gif)
After barely two days in office, then, what has El Trumpo been up to?
- Begun destroying the rights of children born in America to immigrant parents, smashing the DREAMERS act
- Withdrawn America from the Paris Climate Accords (how surprising!)
- Pardoned or commuted the sentences of almost every January 6 rioter
- Begun gathering evidence of "politically motivated" (read, anything that he feels targeted him) acts by those previously in power, obviously just for posterity or his memoirs I'm sure ::)
- Declared a state of national emergency at the Mexican border
- Rolled back environmental protections on natural habitats (mostly Alaska) to allow for drilling and exploration
- Begun to reduce/eliminate subsidies for electric vehicles, moving America backwards compared to the rest of the world as it re-embraces fossil fuels
- Ordered all federal employees working from home to report to their offices or be fired
- Declared America will only recognise two genders, male and female, legislation to follow which will marginalise further and very much harm the LGBTQi community
- Withdrawn America from WHO, the World Health Organisation
- Will no doubt claim credit for the Gaza ceasefire deal
- Defied Biden's ban on Tik-Tok, no doubt expecting to profit from it
- Implemented a federal hiring and regulation freeze
- Rolled back safeguards against misinformation/disinformation and fake news, in a thinly-veiled disguise at "restoring the right of free speech"
Trump creates DOGE with an executive order. It says the unit's purpose is upgrading IT. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-doge-executive-order-elon-musk-us-digital-service-it/)
News Alert: Flights canceled for refugees who were slated to travel to US
Refugees who were slated to travel to the United States after a years-long and often cumbersome process have had their flights canceled, according to a State Department memo to resettlement partners obtained by CNN.
The memo comes on the heels of President Donald Trump's executive order suspending refugee admissions and marks another example of the swift impact his actions are already having. The move stands to affect thousands of refugees who had flights already scheduled.
https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/what-is-equal-employment-opportunity-act-of-1965-and-why-did-trump-revoke-it-article-117466400
QuotePresident Donald Trump revoked the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1965 via executive order on January 20, rolling back decades-old provisions that banned discrimination and instituted affirmative action in the federal workplace. The act was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 24, 1965, to give opportunity to and protect women, ethnic minorities, and other underrepresented groups.
It took Hitler 53 days to dismantle Germany.
Trump is definitely speed running his efforts to ruin America.
Do yall not remember 2016? How is this not par for the course?
The hyperbole is definitely in the room with us.
I couldn't say, but it seems to me that this is different. Trump is prepared now; he's been here, done that, and he knows what mistakes he made, principle among which was having people in power he couldn't trust and/or manipulate. This time around, he's made sure to staff all his agencies with yes-men and gone further with the forced retirement/firing/sidelining of any of what he calls DEI appointees, which must surely mean that he's aiming for a totally white, straight, male workforce? I honestly don't know how anyone over there can't be scared at the speed this is happening - I know I am.
Except you are acting like it's not different this time around with a detailed plan from a think tank. This term is going to be way worse than the first time around but go ahead and stick your head in the sand.
All the people that voted for Trump are now in the Find Out stage of FAFO especially the increased Latino voters that's getting their abulita shipped away.
Maybe the fact that Trump signed an executive order designed to descriminate against trans people already marks a difference.
But I think Elon Musk's Sieg Heil in front of a crowd of cheering attendees was the biggest red flag for most people.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 22, 2025, 11:13 PMespecially the increased Latino voters that's getting their abulita shipped away.
Dems were going to do that too because they already were doing it.
Also like, we're two days in. I don't think DJ meant to imply that we're at the stage of things escalating to truly Hitleresque levels yet, but they're pretty openly going by a fascist playbook. How successful they will be to that end in the long term remains to be seen, but given the rate he's tossing out these executive orders bluntly attempting to reverse so many progressive policies straight out the gate I don't see why it's so absurd to think that this could easily be the start of such a trajectory.
After the end of Roe I'm not going to just trust that it's hyperbolic to think a party that controls all three branches of government and has the tech industry and media kowtowing to them left and right won't have a much better chance of accomplishing fascist goals than they did in the first term.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 22, 2025, 11:13 PMExcept you are acting like it's not different this time around with a detailed plan from a think tank. This term is going to be way worse than the first time around but go ahead and stick your head in the sand.
All the people that voted for Trump are now in the Find Out stage of FAFO especially the increased Latino voters that's getting their abulita shipped away.
I'm not acting like anything, I just don't get what's surprising. How is my head in the sand when I'm actively participating in the conversation lol?
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Jan 23, 2025, 12:07 AMMaybe the fact that Trump signed an executive order designed to descriminate against trans people already marks a difference.
But I think Elon Musk's Sieg Heil in front of a crowd of cheering attendees was the biggest red flag for most people.
In 2017 he imposed the travel ban and repealed the ACA on day one, again I don't see how this is at all surprising.
Point being 33% of executive orders are overturned by the next president anyway. Just because an EO is signed doesn't mean it's instantly the law of the land. Do you have any idea how long it will take the federal government to update all their forms to remove gender identifiers alone?
Just because I'm critical of the hysteria doesn't mean I don't get it. I'm just saying calm down, this is how it goes, what good does it do to work yourself up into a frenzy? I'm not going to participate in the doom and gloom because it's not productive.
Yes, but condescending people who are rightfully scared of a party that literally pulled a Nazi salute then crying about the criticism you predictably get in return is equally as unproductive.
"oH nO aRe PeOpLe GoInG tO tReAt Me LiKe ThE aNtIcHrIsT!"
Now that's some unproductive masterbatory hyperbole there.
Who am I condescending to? Where have I said it's not problematic? Where am I crying about being criticized?
Just because y'all don't like me doesn't mean I'm wrong or attacking you. I am literally immersed in this shit day in and day out, and I'm allowed to have an opinion. You can disagree with me but stop acting like everything I say is malicious.
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Jan 23, 2025, 01:19 AMAm I allowed to opinions in this thread that aren't emotionally charged or do we have to believe in the antichrist to participate?
How is this not condescending?
I'm not sure where you got that from, Steph. I'm not aware of anyone here who doesn't like you. We can disagree and debate without it being personal, surely? I certainly have nothing against you (mutter.. mutter.. soon all will pay... grumble... show them who's boss...)
As I said before, I think the speed and scale of what Trump is doing this time scares people, and rightfully so. Maybe it won't be as bad, but it's hard not to see the black and red banners unfolding behind him and to hear the tramp of boots in lockstep. Musk doesn't help.
Whether you agree with that or not, I would contend that anyone debating with you here, or disagreeing with you, has no personal agenda against you, at least, none I'm aware of. Maybe you know better. But I certainly have no issue with you.
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 23, 2025, 01:58 AMI'm not sure where you got that from, Steph. I'm not aware of anyone here who doesn't like you. We can disagree and debate without it being personal, surely? I certainly have nothing against you (mutter.. mutter.. soon all will pay... grumble... show them who's boss...)
As I said before, I think the speed and scale of what Trump is doing this time scares people, and rightfully so. Maybe it won't be as bad, but it's hard not to see the black and red banners unfolding behind him and to hear the tramp of boots in lockstep. Musk doesn't help.
Whether you agree with that or not, I would contend that anyone debating with you here, or disagreeing with you, has no personal agenda against you, at least, none I'm aware of. Maybe you know better. But I certainly have no issue with you.
Also true.
We all adore you.
Edit: Except for DJ
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Jan 23, 2025, 01:55 AMHow is this not condescending?
That's not even from this thread. I purposefully did not come to this thread with that energy. I feel comfortable doing so in SGR's thread because he knows how to read me.
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 23, 2025, 01:58 AMI'm not sure where you got that from, Steph. I'm not aware of anyone here who doesn't like you. We can disagree and debate without it being personal, surely? I certainly have nothing against you (mutter.. mutter.. soon all will pay... grumble... show them who's boss...)
As I said before, I think the speed and scale of what Trump is doing this time scares people, and rightfully so. Maybe it won't be as bad, but it's hard not to see the black and red banners unfolding behind him and to hear the tramp of boots in lockstep. Musk doesn't help.
Whether you agree with that or not, I would contend that anyone debating with you here, or disagreeing with you, has no personal agenda against you, at least, none I'm aware of. Maybe you know better. But I certainly have no issue with you.
All of this can be true, and the way we talk about it can still be hyperbolic.
It certainly can. Or, as we say here, it could all be a load of bollox. :laughing:
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Jan 23, 2025, 01:05 AMI'm not acting like anything, I just don't get what's surprising. How is my head in the sand when I'm actively participating in the conversation lol?
It's not about being surprised it's about you not seeing how this is more strategic and different this time around. The sticking your head in the sand comment is in reference to you thinking the EOs are no big deal and they are just gonna be overturned by the next President while they are doing immediate harm. Migrant farmers workers are not going to work because they fear they will be deported this is gonna cause supply chain issues and the prices on certain groceries are gonna go up even more.
In my day to day activism, I'm focusing more on fights locally and statewide but it doesn't mean I'm gonna ignore what's going on Federally as well.
Sounds like projection. Expressing that people need to behave more rationally and less emotively doesn't at all imply either assertion you've made.
Just like I tell my youth, panicking about things out of your control like this isn't going to do more than prolong your own suffering and feed into the fearmongering/hysteria.
None of this suggests ignoring anything.
Yall are too nice for letting steph throw rocks and hide her hands.
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 21, 2025, 07:50 PMNot really. When Trump is basically waiting down a dark alley with a baseball bat, has effectively sent threatening letters, I think Biden's response was the right one: get their protection in before Trump tries to bring the hammer down. If someone called to your house showing a gun on their hip and said "I'll be back later" and someone in power offered to help you, would you not think it right that they did? I know that's really watering down the situation, but the general precepts fit: if your friends or allies are threatened with retribution and you're in a position to help, why would you not? Who cares about the optics, especially if you're leaving office?
You want to talk about shady pardons?
https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2025/0121/1491950-us-politics/
I wanted to add some thoughts to this discussion before I forget (I've been busy lately).
I think what it ultimately boils down to is that the framers have provided the president with the power of the pardon, probably the greatest constitutional unilateral executive authority that there is, as a safeguard against the judicial branch - in cases where they might get it wrong or the punishment decided on a group or an individual is simply too severe. Typically, we've seen the pardon power see its greatest volume of use with either an incoming president (at the height of their political capital and leewway, so to speak) or an outgoing president (their last chance to use it, and likely won't receive that much pushback or even news coverage given the timing). Generally speaking, we accept that the tradeoff for the president having this power and safeguard against the judiciary is that it can (and will) be overused and abused.
Typically, pardons are issued for those that have been convicted of, or at least charged with a criminal offense. That wasn't the case with Biden's pre-emptive pardons - but constitutionally (as far as I'm aware), there's nothing stating he can't issue a pardon like that. There is, as far as I know, really only one clear precedent for it though - that would be Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. Nixon resigned of course to avoid what appeared to be an inevitable impeachment (one thing presidential pardons are explicitly not allowed to cover - the other being state crimes, as it's a federal power), and he was never officially charged with or convicted of any crime - and Ford pardoned him anyway to put an end to all of it and (so the story goes) to restore a sense of normalcy back to our government and country in a time of very high tumult. Of course, in that case, we all essentially knew the charges that would be coming Nixon's way (unlike the charges that could have been levied against those Biden issued the pre-emptive pardons for).
If they wanted, Republicans could still conduct investigations into these people - and someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think they could plead the fifth anymore now that they've received a pardon - if they lied to congress during these hearings (and it could be proven that they lied), they could actually be charged with that (because the pardons wouldn't cover that timeframe) - hell, if the people who received pre-emptive pardons got subpoenaed and defied Congress, and didn't show up for the hearings, Republicans could sentence them to jail for that too (as was done to Peter Navarro (https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/politics/peter-navarro-jail-contempt-of-congress/index.html) and Steve Bannon (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/steve-bannon-convicted-on-contempt-charges-for-defying-jan-6-committee-subpoena)). This is something I've mentioned in a discussion with Lisna before, Stalin's secret police chief Beria (who was a complete scum of the earth asshole) once said: "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_give_you_the_case_against_him). The people who move in these high circles of power, money and influence - I practically guarantee that any investigation with enough time and will dedicated to it will find
something to charge them with. And by the letter of the law, they probably did commit the crime - which certainly doesn't mean the the prosecution was not politically motivated. But while one political aisle will decry it as 'political persecution', the other side (the one doing the prosecuting) will say "No one is above the law".
Now that Biden has set a precedent with these pre-emptive pardons, it would not be shocking to see Trump, in 4 years, issue gobs of pre-emptive pardons for his political friends and family members. By then, he'll have no personal stakes in it, as his political future will be just about as limited as Biden's is now, especially given his age (assuming Trump makes it that far). If nothing changes, taken to an extreme, every outgoing president could issue these kinds of pre-emptive pardons. If you were to make changes and restrict this kind of thing though, and the president could not do that, taken to the other extreme, each successive administration could investigate and prosecute members of the previous administration - they'll all find something to justify the investigation, and then something to justify criminal charges. I'm not sure which extreme would be worse honestly.
Given that the presidential pardon power is enshrined in the Constitution rather plainly and clearly, I believe it would take a constitutional amendment to change/restrict it. That would mean you'd need a 2/3 majority in favor in Congress, and you'd need 2/3 of the state legislatures in favor across all 50 states. That's an
enormously high bar. So barring that, unfortunately (or fortunately I suppose, depending on your perspective), we have to learn to take the bad with the good when it comes to presidential pardon power - recognizing that the tradeoff for the check on judicial overreach is that it will (as it has been) inevitably abused, probably in contradiction to the spirit in which the law was written by the framers of the constitution, but not the letter by which it was written.
Quote from: Psy-Fi on Jan 21, 2025, 02:03 PMPresidential pardons only cover Federal crimes, not state crimes. So if any of them committed crimes at the state level, they can still be charged and prosecuted and, if found guilty, sentenced.
Preemptive pardons, when no charges have even been put forth, just make the recipient look shady as hell in my opinion.
I don't think it looks shady especially when you know that Trump is out for revenge and has a hit list.
Quote from: SGR on Jan 23, 2025, 07:03 PMI wanted to add some thoughts to this discussion before I forget (I've been busy lately).
I think what it ultimately boils down to is that the framers have provided the president with the power of the pardon, probably the greatest constitutional unilateral executive authority that there is, as a safeguard against the judicial branch - in cases where they might get it wrong or the punishment decided on a group or an individual is simply too severe. Typically, we've seen the pardon power see its greatest volume of use with either an incoming president (at the height of their political capital and leewway, so to speak) or an outgoing president (their last chance to use it, and likely won't receive that much pushback or even news coverage given the timing). Generally speaking, we accept that the tradeoff for the president having this power and safeguard against the judiciary is that it can (and will) be overused and abused.
Typically, pardons are issued for those that have been convicted of, or at least charged with a criminal offense. That wasn't the case with Biden's pre-emptive pardons - but constitutionally (as far as I'm aware), there's nothing stating he can't issue a pardon like that. There is, as far as I know, really only one clear precedent for it though - that would be Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. Nixon resigned of course to avoid what appeared to be an inevitable impeachment (one thing presidential pardons are explicitly not allowed to cover - the other being state crimes, as it's a federal power), and he was never officially charged with or convicted of any crime - and Ford pardoned him anyway to put an end to all of it and (so the story goes) to restore a sense of normalcy back to our government and country in a time of very high tumult. Of course, in that case, we all essentially knew the charges that would be coming Nixon's way (unlike the charges that could have been levied against those Biden issued the pre-emptive pardons for).
If they wanted, Republicans could still conduct investigations into these people - and someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think they could plead the fifth anymore now that they've received a pardon - if they lied to congress during these hearings (and it could be proven that they lied), they could actually be charged with that (because the pardons wouldn't cover that timeframe) - hell, if the people who received pre-emptive pardons got subpoenaed and defied Congress, and didn't show up for the hearings, Republicans could sentence them to jail for that too (as was done to Peter Navarro (https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/politics/peter-navarro-jail-contempt-of-congress/index.html) and Steve Bannon (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/steve-bannon-convicted-on-contempt-charges-for-defying-jan-6-committee-subpoena)). This is something I've mentioned in a discussion with Lisna before, Stalin's secret police chief Beria (who was a complete scum of the earth asshole) once said: "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_give_you_the_case_against_him). The people who move in these high circles of power, money and influence - I practically guarantee that any investigation with enough time and will dedicated to it will find something to charge them with. And by the letter of the law, they probably did commit the crime - which certainly doesn't mean the the prosecution was not politically motivated. But while one political aisle will decry it as 'political persecution', the other side (the one doing the prosecuting) will say "No one is above the law".
Now that Biden has set a precedent with these pre-emptive pardons, it would not be shocking to see Trump, in 4 years, issue gobs of pre-emptive pardons for his political friends and family members. By then, he'll have no personal stakes in it, as his political future will be just about as limited as Biden's is now, especially given his age (assuming Trump makes it that far). If nothing changes, taken to an extreme, every outgoing president could issue these kinds of pre-emptive pardons. If you were to make changes and restrict this kind of thing though, and the president could not do that, taken to the other extreme, each successive administration could investigate and prosecute members of the previous administration - they'll all find something to justify the investigation, and then something to justify criminal charges. I'm not sure which extreme would be worse honestly.
Given that the presidential pardon power is enshrined in the Constitution rather plainly and clearly, I believe it would take a constitutional amendment to change/restrict it. That would mean you'd need a 2/3 majority in favor in Congress, and you'd need 2/3 of the state legislatures in favor across all 50 states. That's an enormously high bar. So barring that, unfortunately (or fortunately I suppose, depending on your perspective), we have to learn to take the bad with the good when it comes to presidential pardon power - recognizing that the tradeoff for the check on judicial overreach is that it will (as it has been) inevitably abused, probably in contradiction to the spirit in which the law was written by the framers of the constitution, but not the letter by which it was written.
Unless there is some limitation to the pardons, I'm not sure about the highlighted. I think there would be a lot of legal debate about that. Might need the Supremes to get involved.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Jan 23, 2025, 11:22 PMUnless there is some limitation to the pardons, I'm not sure about the highlighted. I think there would be a lot of legal debate about that. Might need the Supremes to get involved.
The limitation would be the timeframe. These pardons don't allow those who received them to go on and commit criminal offenses in the future and be immune from prosecution because of it. It covers past conduct within the specified timeframe. Of course, ignoring a congressional subpoena or lying to congress in hypothetical coming investigations would be a future offense. I highly doubt a case of 'Does President Biden's 2025 preemptive pardon grant me immunity for my defiance of a congressional subpoena in 2027' would go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Trump signs executive order to release more JFK, RFK, MLK assassination files (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-announces-jfk-rfk-mlk-assassination-files-to-be-released/)
If the 'files released from the government' implicate the government, I shall be greatly surprised. :laughing:
Quote from: SGR on Jan 23, 2025, 11:40 PMThe limitation would be the timeframe. These pardons don't allow those who received them to go on and commit criminal offenses in the future and be immune from prosecution because of it. It covers past conduct within the specified timeframe. Of course, ignoring a congressional subpoena or lying to congress in hypothetical coming investigations would be a future offense. I highly doubt a case of 'Does President Biden's 2025 preemptive pardon grant me immunity for my defiance of a congressional subpoena in 2027' would go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Sure, but the pardons are to immunize against the unknown consequences of any and all actions taken by the Rs. Fauci, Milley, and Cheney would each face a different set of facts, circumstances, and questions. If lying was a consequence of actions taken by the Rs, it only occurred because of the Rs.
In any event this is a hypothetical and in my view highly unlikely to happen. People with pardons in the bag have much less incentive to lie.
The Rs may be a little more gun-shy with subpoena power if it turns out that there is much substance to this report.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5103976-johnson-subpeona-hutchinson-jan-6/ (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5103976-johnson-subpeona-hutchinson-jan-6/)
I've drafted up a couple long ranting replies, but I think the key point I would make is that I really don't think Trump's threats to democracy is hyperbolic for a couple main reasons. First is that while you can pull a lot of individual instances where he gets up to something fashy under the microscope, pick it apart, and find reasons to smirk and dismiss it as overreaction or use it as fodder for some partisan "both sides" comparison or make accusations of hypocrisy, it's been a pretty constant deluge of authoritarian things over the course of a decade. There's elements of authoritarianism in every single system of governance. If you want any sort of judicial process, you are accepting some degree of authoritarian force in society. The key is how that is counterbalanced by checks and balances so that power isn't completely consolidated. So, instead of picking a prodding at this or that deranged Trump tweet or getting mired in partisan shit flinging, I think it's more appropriate to look at how Trump has reshaped the GOP into a party that is defined by loyalty to him and stacked the judiciary and SCOTUS with loyalists who clear the road for everything he does. He's now doing the same to the entire administrative state. There's of course been power grabs done by every administration over the years which rightfully deserve criticism and much of which seeded the ground for eventual authoritarianism to grow, but trumps efforts are on a whole other scale of magnitude. He truly has very little functional guardrails to check his use of power and rein him in. In 2016, I think it was more reasonable to be dismissive of Trump's threat. In 2025 I find it way harder to frame this discussion in terms of "hyperbole" where it should be about "why as this political movement somehow, inexplicably, constantly done nazi-esque and authoritarian shit for a decade". For me it seems like a much bigger reach to keep explaining away the same (increasingly obvious) pattern of behaviour. I've also seen this process play out in the rise of the far-right SD party in Sweden (in terms of their path to power, not their actions in power which are quite different than what Trump is up to) and Canada is right behind the US in all of this. The historical and contemporary parallels are glaringly obvious. So, how this question is framed is important and I think the people who try to dismiss all of this are now actually in the position where they need to do a lot of heavy lifting to back that up. Arguments that made sense 10 years ago ring very hollow now. It's very much staring us in the face.
Another thing is that authoritarianism isn't when some comic book villain seizes power and immediately starts sending the jack boots out to kick down doors and drag people away into the night. It's a slow process that systematically normalizes horrible things that a population would otherwise not go along with. It takes a long time to manufacture enough consent for kicking down doors to become acceptable. Sort of like frogs in boiling water, people come to accept the unacceptable as normal. By the time you get the jack boots kicking down doors, the populace is either being held in a tedious illusion of normalcy since their lives may not seem or vibe any different than before, outright cheering it on or playing the role of brownshirts to torment and corral the targeted scapegoats and out-groups, or just looking the other way since it's not their doors being kicked down... yet. Unfortunately, it is door kicking down time. That is happening now. You are there. Frankly, debates over Trump's authoritarianism is pretty much a past-tense only useful for post-mortem analyses of how he got to where he is now.
Also, as a Canadian from Polish ancestors who fled WW2 the continued threats of forceful (economic or otherwise) annexation directed at my country which happens to neighbour the US is... well, this is all becoming a bit on the nose.
The policies are becoming more extreme because it's been normalized.
Hate crimes towards certain individuals are on the rise.
Talks of expanding territory.
Exploiting an economic crisis.
One thing specifically that's getting ignored is putting Cartels on a terrorist list.
On the surface it sounds awesome. Cartels are brutal terrorists that perform unimaginably cruel torture on people with no real cause beyond profit. But then you think about how this had been used in the past. Imprisoning, executing and torturing people without due process. Many of the people in Guantanamo Bay were innocent. They tortured people just for having relatives in an organization.
IDK. The forced sterilizations ICE was already caught doing was a bit more than problematic in my eyes & people that thought we were hyperbolic back then were clearly wrong. Now the implications of what they plan to do is down right dark.
I think everything Trump is doing is indeed that bad and maybe worse. The suffering will be immense. Sadly, in order to stop it now people would need to be willing to face imprisonment, torture, maybe even death. The time to stop it with little to no sacrifice was election day.
Democracy is the exception, autocracy the norm, many people live happy lives in Russia and China. We are not all that different.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Jan 23, 2025, 11:22 PMUnless there is some limitation to the pardons, I'm not sure about the highlighted. I think there would be a lot of legal debate about that. Might need the Supremes to get involved.
What makes you think Diana Ross would have anything to do with it?? :laughing:
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 25, 2025, 01:13 AMWhat makes you think Diana Ross would have anything to do with it?? :laughing:
Best Diana Ross remix ever opportunity
Question for the Americans: how are people in your circles responding to things like the nazi salute, the nazis marching in Ohio, etc.? Have you seen much engagement other than shaming the behavior? Is anyone still talking about punching nazis?
I ask because I feel that I am seeing much less of that "not on my street" sentiment, or at least it's less impassioned than 2016 and prior. In 2016 I was writing the numbers to ACLU attorneys in sharpie on protestors arms in case they were arrested at the demonstration, passing out know your rights cards and organized against the presence of ICE in our community.
I'm fearful that the generalized wear-down of the populace is upon us, and the sentiment is now moreso "batten down the hatches" - are we still ready for the revolution or are we so apathetic we're just waiting out the storm? (Spoiler: it's gonna keep raining)
^^^
I think your observations are the mark, and it's also an understandable reaction on the part of the population. It's partly a weariness, partly a desire not to let Trump live in your head, and he did win the popular vote. If you can't accept that you're part of the problem.
Plus, the Ds are currently in disarray, unsure what their messaging should be. Opposition just for the sake of opposition is neither good tactics or strategy. Anger is not a policy.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Jan 25, 2025, 03:29 AM^^^
I think your observations are the mark, and it's also an understandable reaction on the part of the population. It's partly a weariness, partly a desire not to let Trump live in your head, and he did win the popular vote. If you can't accept that you're part of the problem.
Plus, the Ds are currently in disarray, unsure what their messaging should be. Opposition just for the sake of opposition is neither good tactics or strategy. Anger is not a policy.
I think Buck hit the nail on the head here. In some ways, after Trump's first victory, and then his subsequent loss to Biden, it was easy to dismiss his 2016 win as a fluke - an aberration in the system due to the rules and electoral college. After his popular vote victory in 2024, it's harder to do so, and easier to see his 2020 loss to Biden as a fluke. In 2024, Americans did not misunderstand what Trump represents or who he is - and voted for him in large enough numbers to secure an electoral victory and the popular vote anyway.
This rather clear outcome should result in a change of strategy and approach from D's, and that's likely what we'll see - and why there isn't as much pushback/resistance as there was in 2016.
I'd still put the Democrats as favorites to pick up seats in the House and Senate in 2 years. Too little too late.
I think Kamala lost the popular vote because people in the cities decided they weren't going to vote for a cop if they didn't have to.
We should be careful not to buy into the idea of a mandate. I genuinely think the majority of Americans are not on board with Trump's agenda, they're going to have it crammed down their throats.
Secret Service Denied Entry to a Chicago Elementary School Looking for an 11 Year Old for Sharing an Anti-Trump Video (https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/01/24/ice-agents-denied-entry-at-cps-school-in-back-of-the-yards/?utm_content=buffer70f0f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
I picked up some know your rights cards just last night to pass out regarding ICE and attending an event on the 15th around organizing but I'm always in those spaces doing this type of work. The momentum to have people get involved and organized is still there. After the election, at least 100 people joined my local DSA chapter so we are growing and doing the work in different working groups. There was a 101 meeting last night that was packed a couple of cities over. I was at a social board game night. We were printing out know your rights cards to give out.
I do realize my experience is probably different than the apathy that others are experiencing but it makes sense. The fever pitch of the election cycle drained a lot of normies. So they are probably gonna sit out the fight and just wait around til mid term elections to get involved again.
https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/01/i-want-more-babies-in-america-jd-vance-says-in-his-first-public-address-as-vice-president.html
QuoteLess than a week after being sworn in as Donald Trump's vice-president, former U.S. Sen. JD Vance of Ohio told a National March for Life rally by the Washington Monument that the new administration stands "with you, and most importantly we stand with the most vulnerable."
"I want more babies in the United States of America," the Cincinnati Republican said in his first public address as vice president. "I want more happy children in our country and I want beautiful young men and women who are eager to welcome them into the world and eager to raise them."
What a fucking clown. How do you want women to get pregnant when they could be risking their life since they aren't allowed abortions if things go wrong in certain states?
Forcing people to have children they don't want is a proven way to get happy children don't you know.
Yeah I completely forgot about that silly me.
It is super freaky to want other people to have children. The only time this is an acceptable sentiment is if you are hoping to become a grandmother.
How about we encourage people to do what they feel is right for themselves. Small government my ass. I hate these creepy loser fucks so much.
Power in numbers. Mormon style.
You do of course realise this is what another very popular dictator wanted too? The SS were actually told not only to breed with their wives (if married) but to play the field, to the point where special SS schools and nurseries were set up to raise the children of illegitimate issue. This was because good old Adolf and smiling Heinrich thought there weren't enough Aryan babies being born. History repeats itself. I bet Vance doesn't want any more smiling BLACK babies in his world!
Also why Elon is pronatalist with a dozen children among different partners.
Yes I do understand that Vance is a Nazi.
Listen up peasants, we need you to start squeezing out more meat cogs for the machine that makes your tech oligarch overlords richer. Too expensive to fix 'em, so we need more meat cogs to swap in when they crap out. Now get out there and breed, and may the odds be ever in your favour.
See, and this is why being a walking incubator exposes one to a level of sexism that is different from that which men experience.
Yeah, I think you have to be very insecure as a man to argue otherwise.
Quote from: Weekender on Jan 27, 2025, 12:20 AMYeah, I think you have to be very insecure as a man to argue otherwise.
Nobody here is arguing with that.
Congressman Proposes New Bill To Give Trump A 3rd Term (https://www.theblaze.com/news/3rd-term-amendment-trump-ogles?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dlvr.it_x_theblaze&tpcc=social_x-post)
Lol he knew Obama would come back and wash Trump easily so he had to make sure that couldn't happen.
https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/1883605199312568332?t=qIPFTcA6lmtOcrvEWsFdvA&s=19
Funny it's like he's attacking his own supporters with this meme.
Fuck Around and Find Out That Trump is a Fucking Moron.
Hey, when Mister Trump wants your opinion, he'll give it to you, capische?
The people behind these executive orders are immeasurably cruel, despicable, inhuman monsters. I hope this lawsuit can accomplish some change, any change, if not the EO itself, then people's hearts. There's no way mainstream media will cover this responsibly so I'm sharing it around.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.280082/gov.uscourts.mad.280082.1.0.pdf (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.280082/gov.uscourts.mad.280082.1.0.pdf)
An interesting breakdown of how Trump's executive orders will do little to help the ordinary man and woman in the short term.
https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2025/0126/1492863-donald-trump-first-week/
Day 7: the Trump administration wages government mandated mass violence against people with HIV (https://www.amfar.org/press-releases/trump-administrations-order-requiring-immediate-suspension-of-all-hiv-services-provided-by-pepfar-will-place-lives-at-risk/).
I don't even know if the English language has words strong enough to describe how I feel about the 'people' behind this abomination of an administration.
I'm sure we could invent a new slur.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/27/trump-freezes-federal-aid-omb-00200891
QuotePresident Donald Trump's budget office Monday ordered a total freeze on "all federal financial assistance" that could be targeted under his previous executive orders pausing funding for a wide range of priorities — from domestic infrastructure and energy projects to diversity-related programs and foreign aid.
Some people are worried this will affect their college loans and also SNAP benefit payments. Let's see how long this freeze remains in place. It's getting shut down at 5pm today.
Google Maps will change the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America (https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/28/tech/google-maps-gulf-of-mexico-america/index.html)
What happens, though, to New Mexico? Is the state going to be renamed Old America?
https://x.com/ThePopFlop/status/1884387182749835564?t=I2v0Vf8md_fILGFibf9X7w&s=19
Yummy delicious Trump voter tears. I know what I'm doing tonight. Looking for more videos like this.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 29, 2025, 03:07 AMhttps://x.com/ThePopFlop/status/1884387182749835564?t=I2v0Vf8md_fILGFibf9X7w&s=19
Yummy delicious Trump voter tears. I know what I'm doing tonight. Looking for more videos like this.
This is like that time I was climbing over a rail and got kicked half way over and fell on my nuts.
It's funny, but it's also really sad and painful and I wish it never happened.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 29, 2025, 03:07 AMhttps://x.com/ThePopFlop/status/1884387182749835564?t=I2v0Vf8md_fILGFibf9X7w&s=19
Yummy delicious Trump voter tears. I know what I'm doing tonight. Looking for more videos like this.
Yeah hilarious.
Also how do you know she voted Trump?
She doesn't say she did, and the text in the video seems to imply she actually didn't vote for Trump - "is this what you voted for?". Note it says you and not I.
Just found this in the replies:
https://x.com/skinnyforlunch/status/1884425914160763182?t=pMoY3SUIgA0_7ShhqBZxLg&s=19
So she didn't vote for Trump, knew it was bollocks without even seeing that.
Trump has issued what appears to be an "ultimatum" to all federal employees:
"resign by Feb 05, and continue on full pay thru Sept. 30, or risk being fired.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Jan 29, 2025, 03:26 AMYeah hilarious.
Also how do you know she voted Trump?
She doesn't say she did, and the text in the video seems to imply she actually didn't vote for Trump - "is this what you voted for?". Note it says you and not I.
Just found this in the replies:
https://x.com/skinnyforlunch/status/1884425914160763182?t=pMoY3SUIgA0_7ShhqBZxLg&s=19
So she didn't vote for Trump, knew it was bollocks without even seeing that.
There's a photo of ICE taking a guy with a "Latinos 4 Trump" shirt that's fake too. These fake narratives get annoying.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 29, 2025, 03:07 AMhttps://x.com/ThePopFlop/status/1884387182749835564?t=I2v0Vf8md_fILGFibf9X7w&s=19
Yummy delicious Trump voter tears. I know what I'm doing tonight. Looking for more videos like this.
(https://y.yarn.co/23ed7ade-c111-4522-929a-932e901b89ca_text.gif)
:laughing:
Payback is a bitch!
Edit: Damn. JJ ruined it with his so-called truth. Boo. Suppose I should read all posts before replying. Oh well, as Trump voters say
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZRGNlLf9X_eKR3WQ_uTSP7sRp_neqm5oD_g&s)
Even if this story isn't true, I bet there are plenty of Trump voters having regrets about things that are affecting them in bad ways.
It's not true. There's no 'if' about it. Someone just completely made it up and gullible people fell for it.
So you say. But I choose to believe alternative facts. :laughing:
Anyway, DJ is not denying that's it's not true. When people say "even if" it usually implies an acceptance that it is true, for instance "It's raining in Spain? Meh, even if that is true, I'm still booking my holiday there" or "[insert car brand here] is poor value for money? Even if that is true I'm still buying one." It doesn't mean to say that the person doesn't believe what you say is not true, just that their view doesn't necessarily change.
To be completely pedantic and accurate, what we should say is "Even THOUGH that's true..." which is basically what I think he was implying.
Also, you're no fun anymore.
:(
I was going to share a picture of 3 suckers with mine, DJ's & Troll's names on them but it wouldn't show but you can imagine it.
How about this?
(https://media.tenor.com/JwVARxwXPI8AAAAM/stooges-three.gif)
Propaganda be propagandizing.
I would love to quit my job but get paid through September... but what are the implications here?
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Jan 29, 2025, 03:30 AMTrump has issued what appears to be an "ultimatum" to all federal employees:
"resign by Feb 05, and continue on full pay thru Sept. 30, or risk being fired.
Pretty smart way to get rid of any bearacratic resistance. Anyone who isn't MAGA is going to want to make for the exit, I know I would and Trump is effectively saying "you're going to wish you did".
Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 29, 2025, 02:07 PMEven if this story isn't true, I bet there are plenty of Trump voters having regrets about things that are affecting them in bad ways.
Probably not more than usual even if liberals don't want to hear that. It's all social issues at the end of the day, not really the tangible conditions of people's lives.
You're also not going to hear a whole lot about inflation anymore.
Quote from: Weekender on Jan 29, 2025, 08:19 PMPretty smart way to get rid of any bearacratic resistance. Anyone who isn't MAGA is going to want to make for the exit, I know I would and Trump is effectively saying "you're going to wish you did".
Yeah I hate when those bears start number crunching and refusing to pass laws.
The folly of trusting autocorrect absent mindedly.
You've got to wonder though: where do these words come from? Bearacratic? It's not even a word. I've had my phone offer me suggestions and I have no idea where they came from. It also seems to have murder on its mind. Every time I write a sentence like "I need to see you for the" or "we can talk about the" it offers me MURDER as the next word! FFS! I haven't murdered anyone in weeks! Well, ten days, easy.
:shycouch:
(https://img.rasset.ie/0021cd30-614.jpg?ratio=1.78)
Bernie Sanders listening to the hearing to confirm RFKJ. Add your own caption...
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Jan 29, 2025, 05:06 PMPropaganda be propagandizing.
I would love to quit my job but get paid through September... but what are the implications here?
It's an easy way to get people to quit without following through on it. Those people that quit are suckers that won't get paid.
Quote"This 'fork' thing is not a buyout," said Jim Eisenmann, a partner with Alden Law Group who represents federal employees, referring to the "Fork in the Road" subject line that accompanied an email sent to federal workers Tuesday. "It's not based on any law or regulation or anything really other than an idea they cooked up to get federal employees out of the government."
Sauce (https://www.npr.org/2025/01/29/nx-s1-5279365/federal-workers-resign-offer-buyout)
So the latest EO by President Rapist aims to (among many other deeply idiotic and hateful things) cut funding from schools whose staff agree to "modify the names" of students to desired names that "differ from a person's sex". I wonder if President Child Genital Inspector would have threatened my high school because the staff referred to me as "Alex", which is a gender neutral name that I was going by both pre- and post-coming out, rather than the proper god honoring biologically sexed name "Alexander".
It adds insult to injury that the atrocity that is fascist persecution of marginalized groups is also just... deeply cosmically stupid.
They usually are fairly stupid in many ways.
I wonder how many schools will refuse to follow and how exactly they plan to monitor schools to enforce it.
Meta agrees to pay $25 million to settle lawsuit with President Donald Trump (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meta-agrees-pay-25-million-settle-lawsuit-president/story?id=118242529)
Only someone like Trump would use a tragedy like a mid-air collision, with the loss of over 60 souls, to push his "down with diversity" agenda, and harp on a point. Jesus in the polling booth! Has the man no shame? Don't bother to answer, I already know. RIP a whole bunch of people who should never have died.
Quick question - why would there be military aircraft in the flight path of passenger planes? Black Hawks don't usually frequent airports.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Jan 30, 2025, 04:04 AMSo the latest EO by President Rapist aims to (among many other deeply idiotic and hateful things) cut funding from schools whose staff agree to "modify the names" of students to desired names that "differ from a person's sex". I wonder if President Child Genital Inspector would have threatened my high school because the staff referred to me as "Alex", which is a gender neutral name that I was going by both pre- and post-coming out, rather than the proper god honoring biologically sexed name "Alexander".
It adds insult to injury that the atrocity that is fascist persecution of marginalized groups is also just... deeply cosmically stupid.
Who knows, maybe a teacher gets in trouble for ignoring this rule, but I doubt it.
The ban on trans in the military is wrong and stupid, but also fuck working for the US military?
Obviously it makes 100% more sense to evaluate on a case by case basis. There are certainly excellent trans soldiers that officers will be sad to lose, but anything that makes the US military less efficient is almost a positive?
The military exploits the young and impoverished. A less efficient military just means more people die.
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Jan 30, 2025, 07:53 PMQuick question - why would there be military aircraft in the flight path of passenger planes? Black Hawks don't usually frequent airports.
From what I've read (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/01/30/black-hawk-helicopter-plane-crash-dc-pattern/78048095007/), the Black Hawk was on an annual proficiency training flight with an experienced crew - and this kind of air traffic over DC is not unusual. Why the Black Hawk remained in the flight path of the commercial jet long enough for the collision to occur seems to be currently unknown - I'm sure we'll get more info, so not much use to speculate.
QuoteThe helicopter that was on a training flight when the collision took place shortly before 9 p.m. Wednesday. Both the jet and the helicopter were taking a "standard flight pattern," Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said Thursday.
"This was not unusual, with a military aircraft flying the river and aircraft landing at DCA," Duffy said.
I am not sure we'll get more info, but it's cute to have hope
Ah you know Biden, Obama, Harris and the rest of the Democrat Deep State cabal were responsible. Trying to sabotage Trump's first week in office. ::)
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 30, 2025, 11:22 PMAh you know Biden, Obama, Harris and the rest of the Democrat Deep State cabal were responsible. Trying to sabotage Trump's first week in office. ::)
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/KIejvpaS6QrAOdCLvu/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952ldiuly0wivggc2wv338j9t86kmpp6uqskj33h8rs&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Turns out that Musk pushed the FAA director out on Jan 20 and in the days following they froze hiring of air traffic controllers and gutted the aviation safety committee. But, yeah, like everything else that ever goes wrong now this is actually the fault of woke DEI commie trans people or whatever bullshit buzzword slurry is being puked around.
Personally, in terms of bullshit scapegoats, I would have ran with blaming Hamas.
Downright sinister.
This attack on affirmative action will lead to greater levels of inequality between whites and blacks that the next generation of Republicans will blame on black culture.
Does anyone seriously doubt the possibilty of slavery returning? If black people and minorities can't get jobs as the Trump administration closes off avenues, and assuming there's no "black/trans/insert minority or oppressed group as appropriate holocaust", then surely those people are going to have to take whatever they can get, leading to the old white master/black servant class that was prevalent in the 19th century and before? I mean, it may not officially be slavery, but won't it be so in everything but name?
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 31, 2025, 12:58 AMDoes anyone seriously doubt the possibilty of slavery returning? If black people and minorities can't get jobs as the Trump administration closes off avenues, and assuming there's no "black/trans/insert minority or oppressed group as appropriate holocaust", then surely those people are going to have to take whatever they can get, leading to the old white master/black servant class that was prevalent in the 19th century and before? I mean, it may not officially be slavery, but won't it be so in everything but name?
:laughing:
I seriously doubt it. I think minorities will still be able to get jobs without government-sanctioned DEI policies - call me crazy, but I think the majority of them probably get hired because of their ability and competency (and not their skin color or their minority identity) - and no, their bosses won't own them as property.
(https://y.yarn.co/ec03a6f1-adce-4bed-bdd7-4fd055365471_text.gif)
Bruh
Oh good heavens.
Quote from: SGR on Jan 31, 2025, 01:23 AM:laughing:
I seriously doubt it. I think minorities will still be able to get jobs without government-sanctioned DEI policies - call me crazy, but I think the majority of them probably get hired because of their ability and competency (and not their skin color or their minority identity) - and no, their bosses won't own them as property.
(https://y.yarn.co/ec03a6f1-adce-4bed-bdd7-4fd055365471_text.gif)
I think the fact that DEI isn't actually diverse, with the majority of the benefactors being white women, shows how racial and gender discrimination has always dominated over merit based hiring techniques and the abolition of them is going to hurt minorities.
I read a book that explained how the algorithm for computing jobs uses arbitrary techniques that favor men over women when looking for candidates such as, and I'm not kidding, seeing if the candidate is active on anime forums.
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 31, 2025, 12:58 AMDoes anyone seriously doubt the possibilty of slavery returning? If black people and minorities can't get jobs as the Trump administration closes off avenues, and assuming there's no "black/trans/insert minority or oppressed group as appropriate holocaust", then surely those people are going to have to take whatever they can get, leading to the old white master/black servant class that was prevalent in the 19th century and before? I mean, it may not officially be slavery, but won't it be so in everything but name?
You should read 'Caste' that already exists in prison labor. Our criminal justice system also creates a permanent class of workers forced to do "low skill" labor because the felony status excludes you from many jobs as well as revoking your right to vote or own guns.
Our criminal justice system is also proven to target minorities with black people being given harsher sentences as well as being 7X more likely to be falsely accused of a crime.
On top of that our immigration system is designed in a way to create a permanent caste of illegal people that are forced to do work below legal wages with far less regulations to protect them. That's why the whole liberal "who's going to pick the tomatoes?" talking point feels so gross to me.
At face value, it's easy to laugh at what you're saying but if you pay attention you realize it's actually not that far from the truth as is and a very valid thing to be weary of.
Quote from: Trollheart on Jan 31, 2025, 12:58 AMDoes anyone seriously doubt the possibilty of slavery returning? If black people and minorities can't get jobs as the Trump administration closes off avenues, and assuming there's no "black/trans/insert minority or oppressed group as appropriate holocaust", then surely those people are going to have to take whatever they can get, leading to the old white master/black servant class that was prevalent in the 19th century and before? I mean, it may not officially be slavery, but won't it be so in everything but name?
If that does happen, I feel like it's only right that we pitch in together as a forum to buy DJ. Let's make the pledge today guys
Quote from: Jwb on Jan 31, 2025, 07:52 AMIf that does happen, I feel like it's only right that we pitch in together as a forum to buy DJ. Let's make the pledge today guys
Bad return on investment because you'll either end up dead or I'm running away. Choose wisely.
Quote from: SGR on Jan 31, 2025, 01:23 AM:laughing:
I seriously doubt it. I think minorities will still be able to get jobs without government-sanctioned DEI policies - call me crazy, but I think the majority of them probably get hired because of their ability and competency (and not their skin color or their minority identity) - and no, their bosses won't own them as property.
(https://y.yarn.co/ec03a6f1-adce-4bed-bdd7-4fd055365471_text.gif)
That's bullshit and disingenuous. The whole meritocracy and railing against DEI is just a dogwhistle and basically a call for only hiring more white people. Minorities will get overlooked regardless of their qualifications for mediocre white males.
Well look, sure, laugh all you want, and you're probably right to, but I was thinking about it this morning. Sure, federal power only extends so far, but what about the red states? If governors start saying things like "only straight white people should be teaching our kids" then they might stop hiring other than white teachers, and fire the ones that are working. After that, surely it's a dark trickle-down to the point where they say "we don't trust [insert minority here] to be serving our kids burgers." If they slowly chip away at all the jobs these people can do, where will they turn? Sure, actual slavery in itself is more than unlikely, but as I said, in everything but name you could have blacks/Latinos/gay/trans etc people being forced to take the shittiest jobs regardless of qualifications. And what then if they're refused admittance to college or even schools? The English tried to do it with us in the 17th century folks, and we ended up with the Great Famine and all but a slave class.
Apparently once slavery has returned, Trump is then going to sentence everyone who didn't vote for him to death and then invade Canada.
Trump is going to build a time machine so he can time travel to 2001 and take out the twin towers.
He's going to did 9/11.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 31, 2025, 02:57 PMMinorities will get overlooked regardless of their qualifications for mediocre white males.
Obviously you're right but I mean, has this ever really not happened?
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Jan 31, 2025, 05:20 PMObviously you're right but I mean, has this ever really not happened?
I feel like with some places having DEI initiatives at least they were working on that issue to be slightly better about it than they have in the past.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 31, 2025, 05:28 PMI feel like with some places having DEI initiatives at least they were working on that issue to be slightly better about it than they have in the past.
Right but they just hire mediocre white women :laughing:
I know you're not actually threatening me
Quote from: DJChameleon on Jan 31, 2025, 02:04 PMBad return on investment because you'll either end up dead or I'm running away. Choose wisely.
No good deed goes unpunished. Such is the white man's burden.
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Jan 31, 2025, 06:08 AMI read a book that explained how the algorithm for computing jobs uses arbitrary techniques that favor men over women when looking for candidates such as, and I'm not kidding, seeing if the candidate is active on anime forums.
Alright, you've piqued my curiosity :laughing:
When you say 'algorithm', are we actually talking about a computer algorithm built for vetting/recruiting hiring candidates? Or are we talking about a set of human-driven protocols/procedures for hiring? And I'm assuming this was isolated to a specific company? Do you remember the name of this book?
Totally anecdotal, but I work in tech, and throughout my college classes, the anime lovers/weebs tended to be the students that struggled the most.
you know, the thing about reading books is that they're great but there's no test at the end to ensure you've understood the material.
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Jan 31, 2025, 05:36 PMRight but they just hire mediocre white women :laughing:
:laughing:
This is so true. A friend(Mexican woman) is mines is currently going through that at her job and she's so frustrated about it. After two years of evidence, she finally reported it.
Quote from: Jwb on Jan 31, 2025, 05:42 PMI know you're not actually threatening me
No good deed goes unpunished. Such is the white man's burden.
As much of an activist that I am, you should know that I'd fight back against being enslaved Nat Turner style if need be.
I meant to say "I know you're not actually threatening me with cardio" but I fucked it up. Wamp wamp
Are we taking bids on DJ already? If so, has anyone change for a button? :laughing:
Quote from: SGR on Jan 31, 2025, 01:23 AM:laughing:
I seriously doubt it. I think minorities will still be able to get jobs without government-sanctioned DEI policies - call me crazy, but I think the majority of them probably get hired because of their ability and competency (and not their skin color or their minority identity) - and no, their bosses won't own them as property.
(https://y.yarn.co/ec03a6f1-adce-4bed-bdd7-4fd055365471_text.gif)
man that's some shocking privileged naiveté
(I don't mean the slavery aspect necessarily. It seems unlikely to me that that would happen, at least not in the near-ish future, but I don't know enough about America to make any informed judgement on that, but I hope you're right there :( )
Edit: in all fairness, reading this thread more attentively, if the point is just the difference that abolishing DEI will make maybe you're not being that naive after all. Obviously minorities have great hiring disadvantages in general but we don't seem to be disagreeing there
The more I actually read the discussion, the sillier my post becomes. Never mind my usual impulsive self, that's what I get for dipping into the politics thread on a Friday night. Carry on :laughing:
Quote from: SGR on Jan 31, 2025, 05:53 PMAlright, you've piqued my curiosity :laughing:
When you say 'algorithm', are we actually talking about a computer algorithm built for vetting/recruiting hiring candidates? Or are we talking about a set of human-driven protocols/procedures for hiring? And I'm assuming this was isolated to a specific company? Do you remember the name of this book?
Totally anecdotal, but I work in tech, and throughout my college classes, the anime lovers/weebs tended to be the students that struggled the most.
I believe it was a computer algorithm but it was from "Invisible Women".
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Feb 01, 2025, 02:51 AMI believe it was a computer algorithm but it was from "Invisible Women".
Thanks I'll have to check that out. An algorithm that searches anime web forums for prospective tech talent sounds too ridiculously hilarious to pass up. :laughing:
Quote from: SGR on Feb 01, 2025, 06:08 AMThanks I'll have to check that out. An algorithm that searches anime web forums for prospective tech talent sounds too ridiculously hilarious to pass up. :laughing:
It's a really good book. I read it a few years ago and that stuck out to me for how ridiculous it was. Shout out to Buttress the phenomenology queen for indirectly recommending it.
The tariffs are actually happening.
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Jan 30, 2025, 11:58 PMTurns out that Musk pushed the FAA director out on Jan 20 and in the days following they froze hiring of air traffic controllers and gutted the aviation safety committee. But, yeah, like everything else that ever goes wrong now this is actually the fault of woke DEI commie trans people or whatever bullshit buzzword slurry is being puked around.
Personally, in terms of bullshit scapegoats, I would have ran with blaming Hamas.
^ Yep, the mainstream media and perhaps this thread too, have been lured into discussing DEI by that cunning conman Trump, who wants to head off any suggestion that his own recent actions are making the problem of Air Traffic Controller staffing levels worse, not better.
How did Trump steer the conversation away from factual discussion and into the realms of partisan scapegoating ? Two tactics: (i) don't let the experts get near the microphone and (ii) get in with your own preferred explanation first, even if it´s fact-free:
QuoteTrump's performance [at the post-crash press conference] only succeeded in establishing immediate and baseless conclusions as to what caused the crash, added layers of speculation that will hamper public understanding of the investigation's conclusions and injected grieving family members immediately into the heat of a raging political controversy.
And by using the power of presidential rhetoric, he has also created a huge problem for official investigators who speak in public about the crash and may now have to issue statements that conflict with the commander in chief's position — which could put their jobs and the integrity of the probe in danger.
It was notable that Trump did not appear with experts at his news conference. Instead, he was joined by a succession of laymen with no in-depth experience of commercial or military aviation whose prime function seemed to be to shower praise on his leadership and to push his anti-diversity talking points.
Source: CNN
Although Trump can't be blamed for the crash, his recent actions suddenly look glaringly bad - and don't bode well for the air traffic control industry. No wonder he wants everyone to talk about his ludicrous DEI comments instead:
Quote"Just last week, Trump FIRED the heads of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Coast Guard, and disbanded the Aviation Security Advisory Committee," one X post read. The Associated Press reported on January 21 that Trump fired those heads and removed all members of the committee.
Another X post read, "On your 2ND DAY, you 1. Fired the head of the Transportation Security Administration, 2. Fired the entire Aviation Security Advisory Committee, 3. Froze hiring of all Air Traffic Controllers, 4. Fired 100 top FAA security officers."
In his first week in office, Trump announced sweeping personnel changes, including a hiring freeze. But aviation experts said Trump had done little that could have precipitated the crash between a commercial jet from Wichita, Kansas, and a military Black Hawk helicopter. There was simply too little time – less than 10 days after Trump was sworn in – for any of his broadly worded executive orders to have had an effect, experts said.
Source: Al Jazeera
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 01, 2025, 06:51 AM^ Yep, the mainstream media and perhaps this thread too, have been lured into discussing DEI by that cunning conman Trump, who wants to head off any suggestion that his own recent actions are making the problem of Air Traffic Controller staffing levels worse, not better.
How did Trump steer the conversation away from factual discussion and into the realms of partisan scapegoating ? Two tactics: (i) don't let the experts get near the microphone and (ii) get in with your own preferred explanation first, even if it´s fact-free:
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/3ohhwMHZ4rusG6dcti/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952egpmxpijo3vcwiwqbhjm50kj38hyy59452yq29hx&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
You've basically hit the nail on the head for the strategy - and it is a PR strategy we've discussed before, partly stemming from his mentor and political hitman Roy Cohn and also Steve Bannon - "flood the zone with shit". This recent article (https://www.barrons.com/news/trump-floods-the-zone-leaving-opposition-drowning-a246a078) went over it again rather succinctly.
quote from article
Donald Trump's opponents have spent the days since his inauguration playing political whack-a-mole over a torrent of orders specifically calibrated to overwhelm and bewilder, say analysts, as the new president gets to work on his radical policy agenda.
A chaotic first week saw him sign scores of divisive executive orders, as well as pardons or commutations for nearly everyone convicted of crimes -- including serious violence -- in the 2021 US Capitol insurrection.
And then there were the new president's freewheeling media appearances, the feuds with perceived enemies, dust-ups with the clergy, stripping of security details for critics, the launch of a meme crypto coin, and one headline-grabbing social media post after another.
"He doesn't just flood the zone, he drowns it," said Evan Nierman, the founder and CEO of global crisis PR agency Red Banyan.
"It's a classic PR strategy: overwhelm, distract and control the narrative before anyone else can. Flooding the zone is his way of making sure no single controversy sticks because there's always a new one incoming."
It's also one of the reasons that I think many news media CEOs are probably very happy with Trump's return. They're more than happy to play along with Trump's game as he will give them new eye-catching headlines every week (unlike the Biden admin) and increase their revenue and profit margins.
Well, I guess it's tariff war time.
Just got to stretch a bit and roll up my sleeves. Which one of you fucking yanks is up first? :p
Just to let you all know (not that you care) I've decided to start a journal chronicling the next four years under the Trump administration (assuming he doesn't launch the nukes before he's through), what happens to America, the world, and how he basically fucks everything up. It will be, I suppose, partially in the form of a diary - today Trump did this, his defence secretary did that, he declared war on the other etc - and partially a sort of record of what occurs and has occurred, from his bid for the second term to his election and beyond. Think of it as a modern-day Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (what?) or an ongoing news broadcast, or, hell, I don't know how I'm going to do it yet, but it may be interesting, especially as many of you have a vested interest in seeing how things turn out over the next 48 months.
Anyone who wishes to comment or contribute, or offer any assistance or on-the-ground knowledge, or correct anything I write which is misinformed or not properly fact-checked, can fuck off. :laughing: No seriously; happy for any help. Perhaps one day that journal will take its place among the great diaries of history, alongside Napoleon's War Diaries, , The Diary of Anne Frank, Churchill's account of World War II and The Diary of Adrian Mole. :laughing:
Or maybe it'll just be a good read, or gather dust.
I'll link it when it's up, once I've written something.
I hope it's boring.
So do I, but I doubt we can bank on that. Look at his first week: we've already had 60-odd deaths. Not that that is directly attributable to him, but the way he's approached the accident shows you that whether it's a tsunami in Japan or a change of political leadership in Bolivia, he'll be there to blame the liberal media/trans agenda/add as needed, so unfortunately one thing I think Trump's presidency will not be is boring.
Of course, if you just mean that you hope the journal is going to be boring, then you're in luck, as all my journals are.
Finally, boring is another word for drilling, so make of that what you want. Bore, baby, bore!
I really hope I can record his not-at-all sad passing in the first few pages of the journal, but I'd have to believe in God for that to happen, so unlikely.
CDC site scrubs HIV content following Trump DEI policies (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190068)
This is so gross. Not even two weeks into his second term I think Trump is already a strong contender for the "worse than Reagan" award (that's saying something)
I think that bridge was crossed in his first term, no?
Quote from: GD on Feb 01, 2025, 06:44 PMCDC site scrubs HIV content following Trump DEI policies (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190068)
This is so gross. Not even two weeks into his second term I think Trump is already a strong contender for the "worse than Reagan" award (that's saying something)
This is just one example of how everything, or most things, America does affects the world at large. It's not just Americans who are impacted, but Trump either doesn't care about that or is well aware of it. The influence stretches out, and he casts a very long shadow. Could you see any pushback from the rest of the world, or are we all just too scared to even whisper a protest in his august presence?
INB4 Trump says "They should never have been in our country anyway"... ::)
News Alert: 7 dead, including 1 on ground, after a medevac jet with a child patient and her mother crashes in Philadelphia, mayor says
Seven people are dead, including one in a car on the ground, after a twin-engine medevac jet carrying a child patient and her mother crashed in a neighborhood in northeast Philadelphia Friday night, Philadelphia's mayor said Saturday morning.
At least 19 were injured on the ground. The six people on the plane were Mexican nationals, Mexico's president said Saturday morning.
"I mourn the death of six Mexicans in the plane crash in Philadelphia, United States," Claudia Sheinbaum said. "The consular authorities are in permanent contact with the families; I have asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to support them in whatever way is required. My solidarity with their loved ones and friends."
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Feb 01, 2025, 07:05 PMI think that bridge was crossed in his first term, no?
Maybe almost, but not quite imo. Trump's woeful response to the Covid pandemic certainly rivaled Reagan's non-handling of the AIDS crisis for instance, but I'm also taking into account the untold damage Reagan engendered internationally as well as domestically, which is still felt to this day.
On the other hand old Ron never mounted an insurrection trying to steal an election, so he does have that advantage, I'll say that
An interesting and disturbing article from the World Socialist Website. I found this claim particularly concerning:
The Democratic Party's capitulation is not an accident but a reflection of its role as a party of Wall Street and war. The continuity between Trump's first and second administrations—his efforts to invoke the Insurrection Act, suppress opposition and consolidate power in the executive branch—has been met not with alarm or resistance from the Democrats but with silence and complicity.
The clear inference being that far from attempting to stand up to Trump, the Democrats are going to quietly step aside and let him have his way, even possibly silently applauding his actions, while perhaps paying the barest lipservice to the preservation of some sort of democracy as America collapses into a fascist maelstrom.
Full article here: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/01/28/rlxj-j28.html
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 02, 2025, 02:25 AMAn interesting and disturbing article from the World Socialist Website. I found this claim particularly concerning:
The Democratic Party's capitulation is not an accident but a reflection of its role as a party of Wall Street and war. The continuity between Trump's first and second administrations—his efforts to invoke the Insurrection Act, suppress opposition and consolidate power in the executive branch—has been met not with alarm or resistance from the Democrats but with silence and complicity.
The clear inference being that far from attempting to stand up to Trump, the Democrats are going to quietly step aside and let him have his way, even possibly silently applauding his actions, while perhaps paying the barest lipservice to the preservation of some sort of democracy as America collapses into a fascist maelstrom.
Full article here: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/01/28/rlxj-j28.html
I don't buy it. Sure, the next two years are going to be difficult and unpleasant, and more for some than others, but the sky didn't fall during Trump 1, despite all the predictions of doom.
The US system of government with its many checks and balances is designed to slow down change. Much easier to effect change in a parliamentary system.
The WSWS are always good for a bit of overblown hyperbole, and I might say you're not exactly a slouch in that dept. yourself.
Fascist maelstrom?
Okay then: fascist well? Fascist apocalypse? What term suits you? :laughing:
Yeah I know it's hyperbolic, but they make some good points. I'm not saying I believe everything they say or expect it to happen, but Trump 2.0 is going to be a WHOLE lot different to Trump 1.0 as I'm sure you know, and with both houses in his pocket now, and all his little minions in place it's going to be a lot harder to use the N-word to Trump. He doesn't like people to tell him NO, and I can't see too many who are going to stand up to him.
Hey, time will tell, and I'd love to be wrong, but things are sliding in a very dark and dangerous direction, and the guy hasn't even been in power for two weeks. Imagine what it's going to look like in 6 months!
In the wise words of Steve Winwood / Jim Capaldi / Chris Wood,
"Who knows what tomorrow will bring." My guess, though, is that it'll be closer to Trollheart's maelstrom than Buck M's two "difficult and unpleasant" years.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Feb 02, 2025, 03:05 AMI don't buy it. Sure, the next two years are going to be difficult and unpleasant, and more for some than others, but the sky didn't fall during Trump 1, despite all the predictions of doom.
The US system of government with its many checks and balances is designed to slow down change. Much easier to effect change in a parliamentary system.
The WSWS are always good for a bit of overblown hyperbole, and I might say you're not exactly a slouch in that dept. yourself.
Fascist maelstrom?
I think it's time to retire the phrase "checks and balances" when talking about US politics, because there have effectively been none, from the Senate, Mitch McConnell, the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, Jack Smith, Aileen Cannon and of course the electorate: everyone has been complicit or outmanouvred and from what I see the only person to hold Trump accountable in the last 8 or so years has been E.Jean Carroll.
Here's Rachel Maddow sounding the alarm on the significance of Trump's purge of the FBI:-
The phrase she uses at one point is "permanent and irrevocable". :(
The fields of science and medicine are being censored because reality is too woke for the crybabies. (https://insidemedicine.substack.com/p/breaking-news-cdc-orders-mass-retraction?r=5p3cr&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true)
One of the first things the nazis did was destroy the world's first clinic that was studying and acknowledging transgender people and burn all its research. The nazis dismissed any scientific research they didn't agree with as "Jew science".
There was a question of whether Elon "Sieg Heil" Musk is a genuine practitioner of Naziism or just an edgy shithead, whether it's technically accurate to call the people in the cabinet and entourage of President Rapist nazis because they don't literally say "we're nazis", and I'm here to tell you that such distinctions are utterly meaningless; actions are what matters, and this regime's actions are Nazi to the core.
Unsurprisingly, I agree. I think it's time that people stopped saying "oh it won't be so bad" or "You're panicking" etc. Look around, people! One fucking week and the man has transformed the way America works and is governed! It amazes me that there are no memes of Trump as Big Brother, because that's exactly what's happening. Not only the Nazis (in reality) but Orwell's Party (in fiction) did this: remove any "unauthorised" words or references that don't sit with the Party policy. The next will be an attempt to have the OED (at least, any American editions) remove these words, and try to pretend they never existed. As Lexi says, actions speak far louder than words or intentions, and these actions are there for all to see. Some of you may want to hope that the next four years won't be a nightmare, and perhaps, if these "changes" don't directly affect you, they won't. But for those they do and will affect, the nightmare is only beginning.
I'm reminded of a quote (which may have been made up, or may have been from actual records, I don't know, but it's still appropriate) I heard in a drama about the Nazis agreeing on the Final Solution. One asked, "Do the Jews even believe in Hell?" And I think it was Heydrich or Goring who sneered "They do now: we create it for them on Earth."
Sure, you can call it hyperbolic (and remember how people didn't take Hitler seriously until he declared war on Poland) and play it down all you want, but it's not all that hard to see the Trump administration replace the word Jews with Transgender people. They clearly have an agenda to marginalise and if possible eliminate them altogether. They want the world to forget there was even such a thing as a third, fourth or more sex or gender, or that people could decide what gender they felt they were; they want a "Garden of Eden" fundamentalist Christian belief to prevail, where man is man and woman is woman and there's nothing else unless you'd like to visit our purpose-built torture cells. Buck and JWB and anyone else can call me alarmist or fear-mongering or anything else they wish: the fact is I would love to be wrong, but I know I'm not. What are the chances of Trump backing down on anything he's done, unless somehow it's deemed unconstitutional and he has to? And even then, he'll fight it. He's the most powerful man on the planet right now, and he has a grudge against a whole lot of people. He's not going to drop that grudge, and if people have to be imprisoned, be deported or even die to satisfy his lust for revenge, he's already made it very clear he's good with this.
It's not like there's anything can be done, I know that. But it should at least be ackowledged that this is where we are, this is the threat America faces, and while I'm sure some people will say it's easy for me to say all this, sitting safe at home in a little country that doesn't matter, that doesn't stop me feeling worried, terrified and not in the least positive for what the future holds.
In the end, a question: just exactly how much evidence do you need before you will be convinced this is not just a "blip" in American democracy, and that the whole history of the US, and possibly the world, is on a knife-edge, about to tip over into an abyss from which it may not escape?
And yes, I'm aware some of you will laugh at my flowery language. I'm a writer, that's what I do. Deal with it. It's going to be the very least of your problems.
If you want to win the next election after you've lost the last one you have to just suck it up and get to work. Complaining about the winners may make you feel good, but is a waste of time and energy. Fight back with better politics and policies.
Here's a blog post that was written long before the election, July 17, 2024. It outlines 19 areas where the Ds were losing out to the Rs in understanding the "vibe shift" in US politics. I don't agree with all but you can see that others easily might. It's a partial work order for the Ds.
In an NYT column Jan. 19, 2025 Ezra Klein referenced this blog post and acknowledged it as one of the most prescient.
Here's the original blog post, and the full NYT article.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/07/the-changes-in-vibes-why-did-they-happen.html (https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/07/the-changes-in-vibes-why-did-they-happen.html)
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/01/ezra-klein-on-the-vibe-shift.html (https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/01/ezra-klein-on-the-vibe-shift.html)
https://archive.ph/d8lp3 (https://archive.ph/d8lp3)
I should also note that Tyler Cowen is a Libertarian academic economist, very much of the "intellectual" class.
See point #7 in his post where he notes that people don't like being ruled by people like him.
Question for the worriers: where do you genuinely believe we will be in 4 years?
Surely you believe by 2028 there won't be an election?
If that's a serious question, I don't quite believe there won't be an election, but I feel it will be almost Saddam Hussein-like, where there really is one party and they have a stranglehold on the country, and there's no choice. I also feel - know - that the cost of living, which is already too fucking high, is likely to skyrocket thanks to Trump's trade war with just about everyone. Unemployment is likely to rise to unprecedented levels, home repossessions will also rise, and I see America really withdrawing, Japan-like, into a very insular nation whose leaders are primarily, and principally, and even only concerned with events within their own borders, and leave the rest of the world to fend for itself.
I see civil rights being rolled back as the far right are given more or less free rein, I see women's reproductive rights being trampled on, and I don't think it's stretching the bounds too far to see a Trump dynasty emerging, where by manipulating the vote or by spouting his usual lies and sowing fear, Trump convinces the American public there is nobody else who can lead this country other than his progeny.
I also see a lot of snarky comments coming my way, but then, I'm used to that.
Question for you,
@jimmy jazz : how do you see this affecting the UK in the next four years? Given that you are - have to be - such an ally to America, what changes do you see the British government making to appease Trump and stay on his right (hah!) side?
Thanks for the question, jj.
I assume that by "we", you're really referring to the USA, and although I don't live there, these are some of my guesses:-
1. yes, there'll be an election in 2028, although it'll be heavily weighted in the Republican's favour: with the existing gerrymandering, the existing Electoral College system and with hyped-up media and financial support from Musk, Zuckerburg, Besos and Fox News. If by any chance there were to be a Dem win, we'd see a replay of the whole false-electors/big-lie scenario.
2. the CDC will lose it's reputation for being a reliable source of scientific advice and data.
3. America will have consolidated its new-found pariah status. (just look at the countries that are NOT in the World Health Organisation to get an idea of the countries the US might be prepared to align itself with on environmental/health issues).
4. The FBI and the Attorney General will not be motivated by the notion of "justice for the people". At best it will offer a cloak of respectablity to disguise Trump's various vendettas and/or pardons.
5. Ditto the IRS, which will use its power to implement vindictive audits (as it has arguably done already during Trump's first term).
6. Ditto the Supreme Court, who will continue to pay lip service to the idea that "no one is above the law", while continuing their current policy of (in fact) placing themselves and Trump beyond the reach of the law.
7. Various minority groups will continue to be demonised, following the propaganda model of the Nazi party.
8. Like with the loss of abortion rights, many people will have, by 2028, resigned themselves to living in a less fair, less equal and more corrupt country.:(
9. Standards of public safety in the air, in the workplace, for food, vehicles etc, will be reduced, because safety costs money, but doesn't show any return in the profit columns that oligarchs are typically focused on.
10. With the advancing years, Trump will become even more of an erratic meglomaniac.
11. The biggest unknown, imo, is if the GOP or the electorate will reach a point at which they decide "enough is enough" (to quote the futile, vacant anger of Lindsey Graham)
So, bottom line, jimmyjazz: election or no, there's still plenty to worry about ;)
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Feb 02, 2025, 04:16 PMIf you want to win the next election after you've lost the last one you have to just suck it up and get to work. Complaining about the winners may make you feel good, but is a waste of time and energy. Fight back with better politics and policies.
Totally agree, you got the same thing here as well with Labour voters when the Tories kept winning. It should be time for some self reflection.
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 02, 2025, 06:59 PMIf that's a serious question, I don't quite believe there won't be an election, but I feel it will be almost Saddam Hussein-like, where there really is one party and they have a stranglehold on the country, and there's no choice. I also feel - know - that the cost of living, which is already too fucking high, is likely to skyrocket thanks to Trump's trade war with just about everyone. Unemployment is likely to rise to unprecedented levels, home repossessions will also rise, and I see America really withdrawing, Japan-like, into a very insular nation whose leaders are primarily, and principally, and even only concerned with events within their own borders, and leave the rest of the world to fend for itself.
I see civil rights being rolled back as the far right are given more or less free rein, I see women's reproductive rights being trampled on, and I don't think it's stretching the bounds too far to see a Trump dynasty emerging, where by manipulating the vote or by spouting his usual lies and sowing fear, Trump convinces the American public there is nobody else who can lead this country other than his progeny.
I also see a lot of snarky comments coming my way, but then, I'm used to that.
Question for you, @jimmy jazz : how do you see this affecting the UK in the next four years? Given that you are - have to be - such an ally to America, what changes do you see the British government making to appease Trump and stay on his right (hah!) side?
It is a serious question because of the idea that the USA is now under a Nazi regime. If you genuinely believe that then you have to believe there won't be an election or there will be a completely rigged one with just one choice on the ballot in 2028 at the very most. You must surely think that Trump won't be gone after then unless he dies?
What about concentration camps, do you think those are coming?
I don't see it affecting us much. Maybe some issues with tariffs and trade at the most. I can't see there being anything else.
It's anybody's guess really. When he says he wants to build a concentration camp I'm inclined to believe him. Just like The Wall though, the end product may be watered down.
I don't know if he declares himself dictator, but even that seems more likely than him peacefully accepting an electoral win for Democrats. So again some softer version of that, some kind of election interference similar to what Putin does.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 02, 2025, 07:13 PMWhat about concentration camps, do you think those are coming?
Already here. (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5113897-trump-guantanamo-bay-migrants/)
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 02, 2025, 07:30 PMAlready here. (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5113897-trump-guantanamo-bay-migrants/)
That's been there long before Trump got into power so you can't blame that on him.
Do you believe his government is going to build camps and then start mass executing people?
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 02, 2025, 07:38 PMThat's been there long before Trump got into power so you can't blame that on him.
Do you believe his government is going to build camps and then start mass executing people?
The facility itself existed, but it wasn't being used for the purpose of detaining 30,000 migrants seized from public life in America back in the 2000s when it was built. Trump issued an executive order in January to begin using it for that purpose.
Also you asked about concentration camps, not death camps.
It has at most held something like 800 prisoners, right? The math alone implies the conditions.
People are already being killed, tortured, trafficked, starved... and those are just the children's facilities.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 02, 2025, 07:50 PMThe facility itself existed, but it wasn't being used for the purpose of detaining 30,000 migrants seized from public life in America back in the 2000s when it was built. Trump issued an executive order in January to begin using it for that purpose.
Also you asked about concentration camps, not death camps.
We're working on the assumption that this is a Nazi regime. You can call them whatever you want to call them. Do you believe Trump is going to do the same thing here? Build/open new camps for the purpose of mass murder.
Also the election question.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 02, 2025, 07:13 PMIt is a serious question because of the idea that the USA is now under a Nazi regime. If you genuinely believe that then you have to believe there won't be an election or there will be a completely rigged one with just one choice on the ballot in 2028 at the very most. You must surely think that Trump won't be gone after then unless he dies?
Already answered above. A Trump dynasty will be established.
QuoteWhat about concentration camps, do you think those are coming?
If America could build them to hold Japanese Americans, then absolutely, yes I can see it. Call it "resettlement" or whatever you like, I'd be surprised if he didn't try that.
QuoteI don't see it affecting us much. Maybe some issues with tariffs and trade at the most. I can't see there being anything else.
Unless, as I hope, America turns inwards and retreats from the world stage, I think you're being very naive here. Trump has the power to command the UK military - aren't there American bases over there? - and Musk has already stuck his long pointy nose into criminal affairs in Britain; you really think they're not going to try to extend their power over you? I mean, I don't know specifically how it will go, but to think you'll just be left alone - well, I hope so, but I doubt it.
I didn't say that re: Musk. I've posted about that already so you should know I'm aware of him sticking his nose into our affairs recently if you've seen the posts. Just that I don't think it'll affect us much if at all.
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Feb 02, 2025, 07:56 PMIt has at most held something like 800 prisoners, right? The math alone implies the conditions.
People are already being killed, tortured, trafficked, starved... and those are just the children's facilities.
I think you're out ahead of your ski's with that last sentence. That does not mean I believe everything is hunky dory.
I'm not endorsing the proposal, but the US has been at Guantanamo since 1903. It typically has 8,500 US personnel. It's about 4 sq miles in size. I think that will be sufficient for 30,000, even if they have to use tents.
Latest WaPo headline.
QuoteWhite House puts USAID officials on leave after they refused Musk allies access. Musk called the agency a 'criminal organization.'
The Trump administration has removed two top security officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development, the world's largest provider of food assistance, after they refused to let representatives of Elon Musk access restricted material. The move gives Musk and his allies control of the agency, which they have denigrated without evidence.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Feb 02, 2025, 08:55 PMI think you're out ahead of your ski's with that last sentence.
I'm sorry, I thought we were in the hyperbole thread
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 02, 2025, 08:25 PMWe're working on the assumption that this is a Nazi regime. You can call them whatever you want to call them. Do you believe Trump is going to do the same thing here? Build/open new camps for the purpose of mass murder.
Also the election question.
Your original question asked about concentration camps. Those are distinct from death camps, and I assumed you meant what you typed. The nazis had both of those types of camps. Do I think the use of concentration and internment camps that is currently occurring will eventually escalate to death camps a la the Final Solution? I wouldn't rule it out, but if it does happen I think it's likely that, like in Nazi Germany, those camps' existence will not be publicly available knowledge.
I can't really comment on any predictions of the likelihood of stuff like this happening; a month ago I couldn't have fathomed the speed at which the administration is pushing policies to dismantle the government and persecute marginalized groups. I'll honestly just say, I don't want to think an American Auschwitz could happen, but at this point it feels like all bets are off re: what could happen in the next 4+ years.
OK, thanks for answering.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 02, 2025, 09:41 PMI think it's likely that, like in Nazi Germany, those camps' existence will not be publicly available knowledge.
I had to double check to be sure, but I believe if we're talking about the American public, newspapers at the time (before WW2 was over) reported on the extermination going on at camps. Of course, it wasn't until the war was over that people really learned about the scope. A couple sources.
Public Understanding of the Holocaust, From WWII to Today (https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-understanding-holocaust-wwii-today)QuoteIn the summer of 1944, the New York Times ran reports on the mass killing of Jewish people under the Nazis. In November of that year, 76% of Americans in a Gallup poll said they believed the stories that Germans had murdered many people in concentration camps. When respondents were asked to estimate the number of people who had been killed in these camps, however, it was clear that the extent of the atrocity was not yet understood. While 33% refused to venture a guess, 36% thought the number killed was under 100,000, 8% between 100,000 and 1,000,000, and 24% thought a million or more. By May of 1945, more of the public had come to accept the truth of what had happened, though some still held doubts. Eighty-four percent of Americans in a Gallup poll said they believed reports that the Germans had killed many people in concentration camps or let them starve to death. In this poll, the median estimate of the number killed in the camps was 1 million, still far below the actual numbers as estimated by today's historians.
(https://scd.community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.huffingtonpost.com%2F2015-01-22-Slide1.GIF&hash=4f24b8aa9b53292aff6b218a0e8eca0573fa80ba)
THE UNITED STATES AND THE HOLOCAUST, 1942–45 (https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-united-states-and-the-holocaust-1942-45)QuoteOn November 25, 1942, many American newspapers published reports that 2 million Jews already had been murdered. The World Jewish Congress's representative in Switzerland, Gerhart Riegner, had tried to report this information to his organization's president, Rabbi Stephen Wise, in August 1942, sending a message through the US State Department. State Department officials at first tried to block Riegner's report from reaching Rabbi Wise. They claimed that the planned murder of European Jews was merely a "war rumor." Yet after investigating Riegner's report over the next three months, State Department officials verified the news of the Nazi regime's plan, and, according to Wise, authorized him to inform the American public.
In response to this news, Jewish communities in many Allied nations held rallies and vigils, and declared Wednesday, December 2, 1942, to be an international day of mourning. The United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and nine Allied governments released a "Declaration on Atrocities" on December 17, 1942. This declaration condemned the "bloody cruelties" and "cold-blooded extermination" of Europe's Jews and vowed that the Allies would punish war criminals after the fighting stopped. It made no promise to initiate rescue efforts.
Wonder what the results would be if you polled people now and asked them that same question.
Reckon 'Believe True' would be down to around 60%.
@SGR It's true that people had some idea of what was going on, yes. My intention was to reference the German citizens rather than Americans, but good point. As far as I've read, the Nazis did certainly make an effort to conceal or disguise the exact details and scope of what was going on in the death camps, though as far as I am aware it's also somewhat of a point of contention to what extent the German citizens knew. I think it was probably more of an open secret by the times of the Final Solution and I could certainly imagine in the aftermath of the war that some Germans were less willing to own up to how much they knew. I've heard it posited both ways.
I think it's also probably important to note that they didn't have the internet in the 40s; it feels to me like it would be harder to really hide that kind of thing nowadays, though I still wouldn't rule it out. Realistically it would probably happen on a much smaller scale than in Nazi Germany, but I don't believe for a second that systematically killing trans people or disabled people or migrants would be a depth that a portion of MAGA wouldn't plunge. Even now they're already responsible for ordering or threatening less direct forms of violence like HRT bans and the cutting off of medical services for people with HIV.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 02, 2025, 09:41 PMI can't really comment on any predictions of the likelihood of stuff like this happening; a month ago I couldn't have fathomed the speed at which the administration is pushing policies to dismantle the government and persecute marginalized groups.
Quoting you because you said it but not as a personal attack or criticism or judgement or anything else other than illustrating the point at which I was like "oh, I have something to add here" and this preemptive explanation is not even for you because I know you get it but for everyone else that will want to say I am being such a bully:
I don't get this thing about being surprised by the swiftness and the multitudes of orders going out - I thought we were all on the same page a WHILE ago that the relentless fearmongering and divisiveness and 24-hr news cycle shit has always been about wearing us out and making us complacent and exhausted and disorganized because that's the most affective way to control a population?
Like isn't this textbook shit? I swear we were talking about this being an inevitability for years but now that it's here folks (NOT POINTED AT LEXI) are surprised to see it taking place? What am *I* missing? Is it just like, shock to see it in real time? Or hope that it wouldn't actually get to this point? (Genuinely asking and would be saying all of this same shit regardless of whether Lexi got me on this train of thought or someone else did.)
Can't speak for others*, but I think in my case it can be described this way:
Before inauguration day:
Person: This shit is going to happen
Me: Yeah, maybe but I really hope not
Person: No, it will. You wait and see.
Me: Yeah but it's not going to be like day one is it?
Person: I think it will
Me: Nah I can't see that.
-----
Day One
Person: See? I told you!
Me: Oh fuck! I just did not expect this so fast!
In other words, yes, somewhere deep down we all feared, perhaps even knew this was on the agenda, but we didn't WANT to believe it. Then it's only when you can't disregard the evidence of your own eyes that you HAVE to believe it.
It's just like anything else (not to trivialise it in any way, but to correlate the examples) that you think can't happen, and then it does. A factory shutting down, or even someone you love dying. You probably know it will happen, you hope it won't, and when reality shows you the truth you have to accept it but are still shocked.
Sometimes it's just hard to believe that your worst fears have come true, even if you knew deep down they were going to.
* Yes I'm aware of the irony of that statement, given what some people have said about me.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 02, 2025, 10:22 PMWonder what the results would be if you polled people now and asked them that same question.
Reckon 'Believe True' would be down to around 60%.
Probably a little bit of an underestimate for Americans, but we're getting there. As this somewhat recent YouGov poll demonstrates, blame the zoomers - 20% of them believe the holocaust is a myth.
(https://preview.redd.it/1-out-of-5-young-people-18-29-now-say-that-the-holocaust-is-v0-839ocljzj65c1.jpg?auto=webp&s=a3a8c5868a9b07e32f93725d2d8979584328d8dd)
But as I often point to in discussions about politics or, more recently, music, I'd lay much of the blame on technology, our media ecosystem, and social media. Attention spans are diminishing and our collective understanding of history is slowly diminishing as well. One survey found that around half of Americans couldn't even name a single Nazi camp (https://www.claimscon.org/country-survey/).
QuoteWhen asked to name concentration camps, killing centers (death camps), killing sites, transit camps or ghettos, nearly half (48%) of Americans could not name a single one of the more than 40,000 camps established during World War II. One-quarter of adults in the U.K., France and Romania, and 26% of all respondents, could not name a single camp or ghetto, while in Germany and Hungary it was 18%, in Austria 10%, and in Poland 7%. Auschwitz-Birkenau is the most well-known camp or ghetto.
I'd imagine that if you can't even recall the name of a single Nazi concentration/death camp, it would become much easier to be persuaded to believe that the Holocaust was either exaggerated, or a myth completely.
Quote from: degrassi.knoll on Feb 02, 2025, 10:54 PMQuoting you because you said it but not as a personal attack or criticism or judgement or anything else other than illustrating the point at which I was like "oh, I have something to add here" and this preemptive explanation is not even for you because I know you get it but for everyone else that will want to say I am being such a bully:
I don't get this thing about being surprised by the swiftness and the multitudes of orders going out - I thought we were all on the same page a WHILE ago that the relentless fearmongering and divisiveness and 24-hr news cycle shit has always been about wearing us out and making us complacent and exhausted and disorganized because that's the most affective way to control a population?
Like isn't this textbook shit? I swear we were talking about this being an inevitability for years but now that it's here folks (NOT POINTED AT LEXI) are surprised to see it taking place? What am *I* missing? Is it just like, shock to see it in real time? Or hope that it wouldn't actually get to this point? (Genuinely asking and would be saying all of this same shit regardless of whether Lexi got me on this train of thought or someone else did.)
For me I'd say probably the shock of seeing it happen in front of my eyes over the course of a few days and hundreds of executive orders, yeah.
It's not that I didn't consider the possibility that they would blitz it like this, I guess part of me was still just having an existential grapple with reality, a part of me that was still just kind of in disbelief that everything I knew about America was now in free fall. Seeing it happen so audaciously, brazenly and on a scale pretty indisputably worse than 2017, plus so many democrats, companies and media so quickly capitulating, it's been traumatizing.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Feb 02, 2025, 04:16 PMIf you want to win the next election after you've lost the last one you have to just suck it up and get to work. Complaining about the winners may make you feel good, but is a waste of time and energy. Fight back with better politics and policies.
Here's a blog post that was written long before the election, July 17, 2024. It outlines 19 areas where the Ds were losing out to the Rs in understanding the "vibe shift" in US politics. I don't agree with all but you can see that others easily might. It's a partial work order for the Ds.
In an NYT column Jan. 19, 2025 Ezra Klein referenced this blog post and acknowledged it as one of the most prescient.
Here's the original blog post, and the full NYT article.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/07/the-changes-in-vibes-why-did-they-happen.html (https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/07/the-changes-in-vibes-why-did-they-happen.html)
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/01/ezra-klein-on-the-vibe-shift.html (https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/01/ezra-klein-on-the-vibe-shift.html)
https://archive.ph/d8lp3 (https://archive.ph/d8lp3)
I should also note that Tyler Cowen is a Libertarian academic economist, very much of the "intellectual" class.
See point #7 in his post where he notes that people don't like being ruled by people like him.
I agree with the general sentiment of the post. Democrats need to rebound and regroup - the difficult part of that right now is that they don't even have a clear leader anymore (and even Obama doesn't have the influence or party fealty that he once had) - that, along with continued in-fighting between the more establishment neoliberal faction and the progressives, has a lot to do with why they lost. Here's a recent poll about who voters would support in the Dem primary, for example - Stephen A. Smith...really? (many conservatives have taken to mocking the high numbers Kamala gets, but that's just recency bias - it's nothing out of the ordinary and will change with time):
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1884772250873688325
Of course, this doesn't really apply to the people who post here, who are free to air their grievances and concerns about everything and anything - they're not in charge of the direction of the Democrat opposition or messaging after all, and some of them aren't even eligible to do so (not Americans).
But yes, more broadly, the Democrats as a party need to do some self-reflection about why they lost, specifically why so many demographics shifted in Trump's direction. Too many, some even here, have been content with simply blaming the voters - that won't teach you anything nor does it provide an obligation to change/improve and do better next time. It of course reminds me of the old Simpsons gag with Principal Skinner:
Quote from: SGR on Feb 02, 2025, 11:05 PMProbably a little bit of an underestimate for Americans, but we're getting there. As this somewhat recent YouGov poll demonstrates, blame the zoomers - 20% of them believe the holocaust is a myth.
(https://preview.redd.it/1-out-of-5-young-people-18-29-now-say-that-the-holocaust-is-v0-839ocljzj65c1.jpg?auto=webp&s=a3a8c5868a9b07e32f93725d2d8979584328d8dd)
Yep noticed this myself. There is a generation of people who are becoming very unsympathetic to Jewish people (putting it mildly) and it's just gone through the roof since October 7th 2023. Maybe TikTok is full of shit and they're getting it from there, regardless I see enough of it on Twitter.
yep. it's really very grim
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 02, 2025, 07:13 PMWhat about concentration camps, do you think those are coming?
There are several states building detention centers currently.
QuoteThe Texas General Land Office is offering President-elect Donald Trump a 1,400-acre Starr County ranch as a site to build detention centers for his promised mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, according to a letter the office sent him Tuesday.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/11/19/texas-border-starr-county-ranch-trump-deportation/
QuoteThe incoming Trump administration is considering locations and talking to private prison companies about drastically expanding immigrant detention centers that would hold immigrants before they are deported as part of President-elect Donald Trump's promised mass deportation plan, two sources familiar with the planning told NBC News.
The goal is to double the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention beds — 41,000 are now allocated by Congress — to hold vast numbers of migrants for short periods of time while they await deportation after their arrests inside the U.S., the sources said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/incoming-trump-admin-eyeing-new-immigrant-detention-centers-major-us-c-rcna179843
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 02, 2025, 11:57 PMYep noticed this myself. There is a generation of people who are becoming very unsympathetic to Jewish people (putting it mildly) and it's just gone through the roof since October 7th 2023. Maybe TikTok is full of shit and they're getting it from there, regardless I see enough of it on Twitter.
People aren't being unsympathetic towards Jewish people. They are unsympathetic towards Zionists and Pro Israel government sympathizers that are so blinded by their hate of Palestinian civilians that they don't care about areas of Gaza being raized to the ground.
Two interesting articles about US debt to China:
https://theconversation.com/u-s-national-debt-is-its-achilles-heel-but-china-sees-it-as-an-opportunity-239712
https://www.uschina.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Trade-Facts-Debt.pdf
The main takeaway from the first one is that China is trying to supplant the dollar as the world's favourite currency, and the second one talks about how it's in China's interest, with so much debt owed them by the US, for America to succeed. Both make good points, and are not a very long read at all.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 03, 2025, 12:47 AMPeople aren't being unsympathetic towards Jewish people. They are unsympathetic towards Zionists and Pro Israel government sympathizers that are so blinded by their hate of Palestinian civilians that they don't care about areas of Gaza being raized to the ground.
you should really stop being so naive about this. Those statistics about holocaust denial should tell you enough
(and no, I'm not denying that there are also many people who only object to zionism and are fine with jews)
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 03, 2025, 12:47 AMPeople aren't being unsympathetic towards Jewish people. They are unsympathetic towards Zionists and Pro Israel government sympathizers that are so blinded by their hate of Palestinian civilians that they don't care about areas of Gaza being raized to the ground.
I disagree. There is quite a lot of anti-semitism finding safe harbor in the left, where it should be loudly condemned. The whole Israel-Palestine issue is perilous for this reason.
Quote from: Weekender on Feb 03, 2025, 01:08 AMI disagree. There is quite a lot of anti-semitism finding safe harbor in the left, where it should be loudly condemned. The whole Israel-Palestine issue is perilous for this reason.
That's such a bullshit message from the right that anti semitism is running wild on the left. It clearly isn't.
Anti semitism is coming from the far right and that's why that poll backs it up. It's from the MAGA movement. There are plenty of Jewish leaders that support the ceasefire movement and Free Palestinian movement.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 03, 2025, 01:31 AMThat's such a bullshit message from the right that anti semitism is running wild on the left. It clearly isn't.
Anti semitism is coming from the far right and that's why that poll backs it up. It's from the MAGA movement. There are plenty of Jewish leaders that support the ceasefire movement and Free Palestinian movement.
You can want a ceasefire and criticise Zionism without being antisemitic so that is bollocks. I'm talking about literal hatred of Jews.
I've seen plenty of accounts shitting on Jews with Palestine flags and the like all over their profiles. The far right ones have always been there. Since Oct 7th there are a lot of left wing young people who are becoming hostile toward Jews. You're also obviously unaware of the antisemitism that exists in the Muslim community or the debacles with the Labour Party over here. These people aren't MAGA.
You're doing that thing again where the left refuses to condemn their own shit behaviour and then blames the right. It's boring.
Antisemitism is one of the things the extreme right and extreme left have in common.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 03, 2025, 02:11 AMYou can want a ceasefire and criticise Zionism without being antisemitic so that is bollocks. I'm talking about literal hatred of Jews.
I've seen plenty of accounts shitting on Jews with Palestine flags and the like all over their profiles. The far right ones have always been there. Since Oct 7th there are a lot of left wing young people who are becoming hostile toward Jews. You're also obviously unaware of the antisemitism that exists in the Muslim community or the debacles with the Labour Party over here. These people aren't MAGA.
You're doing that thing again where the left refuses to condemn their own shit behaviour and then blames the right. It's boring.
Antisemitism is one of the things the extreme right and extreme left have in common.
Yep.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 03, 2025, 12:47 AMPeople aren't being unsympathetic towards Jewish people. They are unsympathetic towards Zionists and Pro Israel government sympathizers that are so blinded by their hate of Palestinian civilians that they don't care about areas of Gaza being raized to the ground.
No, a lot of people have exploited Israel/Palestine to push antisemitism. It was already on the rise before, but since it definitely got worse. I personally have not seen it on the "left" and I've seen many many leftists tell people to fuck off when saying antisemitic things. But that's just me. I probably just don't associate much with opportunist shit heads.
At the same time I've also seen a rise of Islamaphobia with the main difference being that everybody generally sees the antisemitism as unacceptable compared to the anti-arab sentiments that never left the US since 9/11.
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Feb 03, 2025, 05:33 AMNo, a lot of people have exploited Israel/Palestine to push antisemitism. It was already on the rise before, but since it definitely got worse. I personally have not seen it on the "left" and I've seen many many leftists tell people to fuck off when saying antisemitic things. But that's just me. I probably just don't associate much with opportunist shit heads.
At the same time I've also seen a rise of Islamaphobia with the main difference being that everybody generally sees the antisemitism as unacceptable compared to the anti-arab sentiments that never left the US since 9/11.
All I've personally seen is the Islamophobia and more more so than antisemitism.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 03, 2025, 02:11 AMYou can want a ceasefire and criticise Zionism without being antisemitic so that is bollocks. I'm talking about literal hatred of Jews.
I've seen plenty of accounts shitting on Jews with Palestine flags and the like all over their profiles. The far right ones have always been there. Since Oct 7th there are a lot of left wing young people who are becoming hostile toward Jews. You're also obviously unaware of the antisemitism that exists in the Muslim community or the debacles with the Labour Party over here. These people aren't MAGA.
You're doing that thing again where the left refuses to condemn their own shit behaviour and then blames the right. It's boring.
Antisemitism is one of the things the extreme right and extreme left have in common.
See this is a case of you seeing different things across the pond and seeing more antisemitism and bad behavior than in the states. In the states the politicians try to make it seem like antisemitism is on the rise but it's not. There are rare cases here and there and I condemn them but there are way more cases in the states especially in NY of Islamphobia but people with your opinion blatantly ignore it. Your side doesnt condemn Islamphobia at all. I've gone to many ceasefire protests with the young people at colleges where we have had Jewish leaders from the community speak at and speak out about the atrocities from the Israeli government. I haven't seen this antisemitism from young people. It has nothing to do with the actual Jewish people. Just because I haven't seen it though I can recognize and say it might be happening but I just haven't seen in it in the states at all the actions that I've been to. It sounds like propaganda tbh.
Definitely on the rise on the west coast.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 03, 2025, 06:23 AMAll I've personally seen is the Islamophobia and more more so than antisemitism.
'I stick my head in the sand so I don't see anything; therefore it's not there' -DJ
This seems like wilful ignorance, especially given your readiness to recognise other forms of discrimination (protesting against which is more in fashion)
Quote from: Marie Monday on Feb 03, 2025, 12:02 PM'I stick my head in the sand so I don't see anything; therefore it's not there' -DJ
This seems like wilful ignorance, especially given your readiness to recognise other forms of discrimination (protesting against which is more in fashion)
Yes take the beginning of that quote for your argument without reading the rest of the statement directly afterwards. So fucking disingenuous to take selective part of that and isolate it. I'm not going to argue with you Zionists.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 03, 2025, 01:38 PMI'm not going to argue with you Zionists.
Bloody hell 😂
They're not being Zionists...
The rise of both antisemitism & islamaphobia are provable phenomenon based on hate crime data.
They're not portraying pro-palestinians as antisemitic. They're just saying some of that does exist and you can't deny that. It's just the reality of the situation. When things like this happen reactionary forces tend to take hold even in progressive circles. It doesn't debunk or dismiss the movement, though.
News Alert: USAID workers at Washington HQ told to stay home on Monday in unexpected, early-morning email
The main office of the US Agency for International Development in Washington was unexpectedly closed Monday and workers were emailed shortly after midnight that they should not come in, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.
"At the direction of Agency leadership, the USAID headquarters at the Ronald Reagan building in Washington, D.C. will be closed to Agency personnel on Monday, February 3, 2025. Agency personnel normally assigned to work at USAID headquarters will work remotely tomorrow, with the exception of personnel with essential on-site and building maintenance functions individually contacted by senior leadership," said the email, of which CNN has obtained a copy.
Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk said President Donald Trump has said USAID needs to be "shut down," following days of speculation over the future of the agency after its funding was frozen and dozens of its employees were put on leave.
Does this factor into aid for Gaza? Is that part of what's behind Musk's heartless intention of shutting down USAID?
Yeah, I haven't really seen too much antisemitism on the left as of late personally, but I also don't really run in politically focused circles much, so I can't speak on it. But I know firsthand that it's absolutely real that reactionary ideas can and do inform young a portion of the young left. An example in the circles I run in that I've noticed is a lot of Gen Z left leaning people buying into conservative attitudes toward sex and not understanding how those attitudes are used as a tool by fascists. So I absolutely would believe there is antisemitism on the left; speaking as a Jew antisemitic ideas can very much be subtle and manifest and ingrain themselves in ways other than people just saying "Jews = bad".
No need to accuse people of being Zionists for reporting on what they've seen in their communities. I have no reason to assume bad faith here.
Informative article about Greenland, and how Denmark isn't the kindly uncle it's being portrayed as.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gpgqqzqymo?at_campaign=crm&at_medium=emails&at_campaign_type=owned&at_objective=conversion&at_ptr_name=salesforce&at_ptr_type=media&at_creation=[82857_NEWS_NLB_DEFGHIGET_WK5_MON_3_FEB]-20250203-[bbcnews_genocidegreenlandhistorytrump_newsworld]
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 03, 2025, 03:10 PMNews Alert: USAID workers at Washington HQ told to stay home on Monday in unexpected, early-morning email
The main office of the US Agency for International Development in Washington was unexpectedly closed Monday and workers were emailed shortly after midnight that they should not come in, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.
"At the direction of Agency leadership, the USAID headquarters at the Ronald Reagan building in Washington, D.C. will be closed to Agency personnel on Monday, February 3, 2025. Agency personnel normally assigned to work at USAID headquarters will work remotely tomorrow, with the exception of personnel with essential on-site and building maintenance functions individually contacted by senior leadership," said the email, of which CNN has obtained a copy.
Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk said President Donald Trump has said USAID needs to be "shut down," following days of speculation over the future of the agency after its funding was frozen and dozens of its employees were put on leave.
Does this factor into aid for Gaza? Is that part of what's behind Musk's heartless intention of shutting down USAID?
Not much. Most foreign aid to Gaza is via the UN. Typically, (for now), by law,( I think), the US pays 25% of the UN budget, from a different fund.
USAID an independent agency, accounts for maybe 60% of aid, and is funded by an annual presidential request to Congress.
Separately, some government depts. have smaller aid budgets.
The Congressional Research Service is a non-partisan arm of Congress.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10261#:~:text=The%20top%2010%20recipients%20of,Direct%20Financial%20Support%20for%20Ukraine.) (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10261#:~:text=The%20top%2010%20recipients%20of,Direct%20Financial%20Support%20for%20Ukraine.))
https://foreignassistance.gov (https://foreignassistance.gov/)
Incidentally, under Biden the Administrator of USAID, was Dublin born Samantha Power.
U.S. tariffs on Mexico paused for a month after border deal, Trump says (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-americans-may-feel-pain-trade-war-with-mexico-canada-china-2025-02-03/)QuoteU.S. President Donald Trump has paused new tariffs on Mexico for one month after Mexico agreed to reinforce its northern border with 10,000 National Guard members to stem the flow of illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl, he said on Monday.
The agreement also includes a U.S. commitment to act to prevent trafficking of high-powered weapons to Mexico, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said on X. The two leaders spoke by phone on Monday, just hours before U.S. tariffs on Mexico, China and Canada were set to take effect.
The two countries will use the month-long suspension to engage in further negotiations, Trump said.
How do you read that? Trump backing down, Mexico offering a tougher sanction or a rare case of cooler heads prevailing? Is it a better deal for Mexico, standing up to the bully in the playground (but have they?) or USA, seen as magnamimous in victory and willing to listen, once they get something?
It's read as just the threat of tariffs being used to get what he wants out of Mexico. It's just a negotiating tactic and the Mexican president finally folded last minute to work through some of the deal and give him what he wants. I'm sure she got something out of this deal as well. It just wasn't specified in that quote.
Run of the mill posturing
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 03, 2025, 05:36 PMHow do you read that? Trump backing down, Mexico offering a tougher sanction or a rare case of cooler heads prevailing? Is it a better deal for Mexico, standing up to the bully in the playground (but have they?) or USA, seen as magnamimous in victory and willing to listen, once they get something?
Funny how a single pronouncement can be read in so many ways! Who knows where the truth lies? I see this development as a climb-down all round and a return to "business as usual": after Trump's dramatic pronouncements,"cooler heads" if you will, are going to fudge together some kind of compromise. My guess: some Mexican soldiers might be sent to the border, but will melt away again as soon as US scrutiny allows that to happen. As for "a U.S. commitment to act to prevent trafficking of high-powered weapons to Mexico" - I bet that'll stay as words on a page, rather than an enforcement policy that would ultimately dent US gun manufacturers' profits, which to my cynical eyes means that it's a total non-starter.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 03, 2025, 05:49 PMIt's read as just the threat of tariffs being used to get what he wants out of Mexico. It's just a negotiating tactic and the Mexican president finally folded last minute to work through some of the deal and give him what he wants. I'm sure she got something out of this deal as well. It just wasn't specified in that quote.
You might have missed it, but this was in the quote and I assume this was what they got out of it - at least optically (
oh wow, a US commitment to act, so valuable and reliable ::) ).
QuoteThe agreement also includes a U.S. commitment to act to prevent trafficking of high-powered weapons to Mexico, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said on X.
But for the rest of it, I agree with DJ - I don't think Trump really cares about 'trade imbalances', at least not in the sense that he truly thinks it justifies these tariffs. That's just something he says for TV/media, and if he can sell these countries/leaders on the idea that he is willing to incur the domestic price pain these tariffs would result in over time, he can bring them to the negotiating table to get whatever it is that he actually wants - and as we saw with this resolution, the other side gets something too so it can be at least seen optically as 'wins' by both sides (even if nothing truly changes/improves). It's basically a game of economic chicken, or an economic application of Nixon's 'madman theory'.
I'm not truly convinced that this will curb the flow of illegal drugs/fentanyl over the border though. I was trying to find the post I made maybe a year ago where I posited the idea that the American intelligence agencies (and it doesn't matter if a (D) or an (R) is controlling the branches of government) have somewhat of an unstated agreement with the cartels that they're allowed to do business in America and make their money (knowing that many Americans will die, which intelligence agencies would view as the 'cost of doing business', or in other words, acceptable), in return for the cartels exercising political control in America's interests (as a proxy) in Mexico and parts of Central America where they have a foothold. My guess would be that the 10,000 Mexican national guards deployed to the border will contain maybe 20 - 30% that are compromised by the cartels. If we start seeing a violent response from the cartels against officials/national guardsmen, then maybe I'll be convinced that I'm wrong. But I doubt that will happen. The cartels derive much of their power from American laws, and the disastrous 'war on drugs'. If you really wanted to cripple them, you'd do it by changing drug laws, not by labeling them as terrorists or making Mexico send their national guard to patrol the border.
Trump is supposed to have a call with Trudeau today at 3pm, so it's possible we see a similar comrpomise agreement and delay with Canada.
Quote from: SGR on Feb 03, 2025, 06:24 PMTrump is supposed to have a call with Trudeau today at 3pm, so it's possible we see a similar comrpomise agreement and delay with Canada.
Good. I'm sick of those Canadians hopping our border.
It's 2 adults saying "sure whatever you want you're so smart oh yes good idea" to a child.
Thank God for them, because I wouldn't have the patience and would have launched full on retaliation.
Ah here, look! They're even letting dogs cross over! :laughing:
(https://img.rasset.ie/0021d5e6-500.jpg)
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 03, 2025, 07:57 PMAh here, look! They're even letting dogs cross over! :laughing:
(https://img.rasset.ie/0021d5e6-500.jpg)
He must've watched the Trump/Kamala debate :laughing:
(https://akm-img-a-in.tosshub.com/indiatoday/images/story/202409/golden-retrievers-hilarious-reaction-to-trumps-dog-was-eaten-remark-photos-tarquinx-125000732-16x9_0.jpg?VersionId=FKPfCSH3mHBidFaWbhqyxd8QRsOrF2BF&size=690:388)
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 03, 2025, 01:38 PMYes take the beginning of that quote for your argument without reading the rest of the statement directly afterwards. So fucking disingenuous to take selective part of that and isolate it. I'm not going to argue with you Zionists.
I'm not ignoring anything. How dare you call me a Zionist without any basis. And that when I've been patient with your bullshit too, given how obtuse it is. I'm not calling you an antisemite either. Also hypocritical since you tend to complain about other people's tone. Childish and dumb behaviour
Nine countries make it onto the list of top trading partner with at least one US state. Canada 23, Mexico 10, China 9. EU is represented by Germany and Ireland.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-top-import-partner-every-u-s-state/ (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-top-import-partner-every-u-s-state/)
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Feb 03, 2025, 09:18 PMNine countries make it onto the list of top trading partner with at least one US state. Canada 23, Mexico 10, China 9. EU is represented by Germany and Ireland.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-top-import-partner-every-u-s-state/ (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-top-import-partner-every-u-s-state/)
What the hell is Idaho importing from Malaysia? :laughing:
Edit: Apparently semiconductors - Malaysia just stuck out like a sore thumb on the map - wouldn't have been in my top 10 of guesses for top trade partner with Idaho.
Quote from: SGR on Feb 03, 2025, 09:50 PMWhat the hell is Idaho importing from Malaysia? :laughing:
Edit: Apparently semiconductors - Malaysia just stuck out like a sore thumb on the map - wouldn't have been in my top 10 of guesses for top trade partner with Idaho.
What business has Idaho got with semiconductors? :laughing:
Quote from: Marie Monday on Feb 03, 2025, 08:58 PMI'm not ignoring anything. How dare you call me a Zionist without any basis. And that when I've been patient with your bullshit too, given how obtuse it is. I'm not calling you an antisemite either. Also hypocritical since you tend to complain about other people's tone. Childish and dumb behaviour
I don't have time to be going around tone policing people. So I don't know what you are talking about but I do apologize for calling you a Zio. It's just that you were saying similar propaganda that they do so I just linked two and two. It made sense. You don't know how much the mainstream media news outlets in the states glaze Israel and any slightest thing that can be deemed antisemitic they make a big deal about it but Islamphobia attacks go under reported. It makes sense though because they are paid off by AIPAC.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Feb 03, 2025, 10:21 PMWhat business has Idaho got with semiconductors? :laughing:
The help power all the tech on their potato farms maybe.
Can we all please agree to respect each other and let's have no more name calling, or I'm going to have to impose a 35% tariff on all posts in future. There'll be pain, and it will not be worth it.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Feb 03, 2025, 10:21 PMWhat business has Idaho got with semiconductors? :laughing:
I think it's largely due to Micron Technology, headquartered there in Boise. And from what I've read, they import other electronic components from Malaysia too. According to this wikipage, Micron is the only US-based manufacturer of computer RAM too (learn something new every day)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micron_Technology
But yeah, like probably all of you, I wasn't thinking of tech manufacturing when I think about Idaho
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 03, 2025, 10:56 PMCan we all please agree to respect each other and let's have no more name calling, or I'm going to have to impose a 35% tariff on all posts in future. There'll be pain, and it will not be worth it.
How bout this, you delay the tariff for a month, and we'll promise to keep the name calling to a schoolyard level. No more 'Zionist' or 'antisemite', we'll keep it to 'poopyhead' and 'buttface' instead.
(https://i.imgflip.com/19vcz0.jpg?a482928)
If we can't make judgements and assumptions about your political views based on the words you use being similar to the bad guy words we hear within our own bubble of existence is this even the hyperbole thread?
I go to protests!
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 03, 2025, 10:43 PMI don't have time to be going around tone policing people. So I don't know what you are talking about but I do apologize for calling you a Zio. It's just that you were saying similar propaganda that they do so I just linked two and two. It made sense. You don't know how much the mainstream media news outlets in the states glaze Israel and any slightest thing that can be deemed antisemitic they make a big deal about it but Islamphobia attacks go under reported. It makes sense though because they are paid off by AIPAC.
Can we stop conflating criticism of Israel with Jew hatred, and also downplaying hatred against Jewish people with whataboutery. Also your last sentence is a bit dodgy.
Yes. And calling my arguments propaganda in the same post where you try to apologise for similar name-calling. Is it really that hard to see that this 'putting two and two' is the exact same simplistic thinking as assuming someone is an antisemite just because they criticise Israel? And then the irony of complaining about so-called propaganda while being all too ready to accept propaganda of the opposite kind (assuming zionist funding/propaganda is behind every alarm about antisemitism. For the record, I'm very aware that pro-israel propaganda exists). Get real.
@degrassi.knoll : no, it's not the hyperbole thread. That's just in the title.
Speaking of which, same deal with the Canucks:
News Alert: Trump announces 30-day pause on US tariffs on CanadaDonald Trump is pausing the implementation of planned tariffs on imports from Canada for at least 30 days, the president said in a Truth Social post. Trump said the pause is to see "whether or not a final economic deal with Canada can be structured," according to the post.
(I assume "a final economic deal" is Trumpspeak for "you hand over your country, nice and easy like, there won't be no trouble".)
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 03, 2025, 11:41 PM@degrassi.knoll : no, it's not the hyperbole thread. That's just in the title.
Speaking of which, same deal with the Canucks:
News Alert: Trump announces 30-day pause on US tariffs on Canada
Donald Trump is pausing the implementation of planned tariffs on imports from Canada for at least 30 days, the president said in a Truth Social post. Trump said the pause is to see "whether or not a final economic deal with Canada can be structured," according to the post.
(I assume "a final economic deal" is Trumpspeak for "you hand over your country, nice and easy like, there won't be no trouble".)
Called it. :laughing:
https://x.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1886529228193022429
(https://media.scored.co/post/kMJ7rbFNXev9.jpeg)
A couple of interesting Grafs from a longer newsletter.
QuoteOur Sovereign: Today Trump ordered the creation of a sovereign wealth fund. This is a government investment fund which can buy or take stakes in private business. The president said he'd like to use it to nationalize — I mean, purchase TikTok. (Digital state media?) For this announcement, Trump was joined in the Oval Office by Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch and Oracle founder Larry Ellison.
Punching Down: Trump fired Rohit Chopra, the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB is your — the consumer's — advocate inside the government. It helped stabilize the housing market after the Great Recession and has since recovered over $20 billion for consumers harmed by unfair corporate practices. Under Chopra, the CFPB limited junk bank fees and overdraft penalties, which could save people over $13 billion a year; it also removed billions in medical debt from credit ratings. It gets just 0.01% of the federal budget and is incredibly effective. Even the far-from-liberal Financial Times has spoken up in defense of the agency. CEOs tend to dislike it and the tech bros hate it; Mark Zuckerberg whined about it on Joe Rogan's podcast and Musk wants it eliminated altogether. A 2020 Supreme Court ruling removed the CFPB's independence, making Trump's firing legal.
Why the crackdown on "gender"? Secretary of State Marco Rubio is reportedly set to make Darren Beattie his acting undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. Beattie was fired from the first Trump administration in 2018 for attending a far-right conference; in October he claimed that "unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men," who he said "must be in charge if you want things to work." Beattie's role would grant him oversight of American international public diplomacy, among other things. And you wonder why they're trying to shutter programs that help with gender equality?
It looks like the Department of Education might be the next thing Trump is setting his sights on.
Trump administration finalizing plans to shutter Education Department (https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/03/trump-finalizing-plans-shutter-education-department-00202225)
Not justifying it but I think there are some reasons for the antisemitism on the left to become much more prominent than I think anyone would have expected 10 years ago.
The first and most obvious is that claims of antisemitism are routinely weaponized in order to defend Israel's actions, to the extent that their politicians are willing to label the ICC antisemitic for issuing arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant. Netanyahu's office compared it to the Dreyfus affair.
QuoteIsraeli leaders from across the political spectrum united to condemn the decision by a three-judge panel of the international criminal court to issue arrest warrants for the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the former defence minister Yoav Gallant.
Netanyahu's office described the warrants as "an antisemitic decision ... equivalent to the modern Dreyfus trial", referring to the 1894 trial of a French artillery captain of Jewish descent that has become one of the most prominent examples of antisemitism.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/nov/21/israel-politicians-condemn-icc-arrest-warrants-netanyahu-gallant
So I think it's become an equally reflexive instinct for some on the anti zionist side to dismiss claims of antisemitism when attached to the issue of Israel.
There's also just people taking naive approaches toward understanding the kind of ideology behind groups like Hamas or Hezbollah. Inadvertently you end up seeing the slogans and iconography pop up among the activist left. But this isn't exactly unheard of. Anti war protesters during Vietnam similarly chanted pro Vietcong slogans.
But with the holocaust denial I think there's more to it than just the rise of antisemitism. We are becoming more and more conspiracy brained and alt history pilled in general due to the endless cottage industry for that kind of content online. But that being said, there's no denying that antisemitism has markedly been on the rise since at least Charlottesville and that the war in Gaza has put it into overdrive.
Looks like RFKJ scraped in by the skin.
14-13? Hardly a unanimous verdict was it?
News Alert: RFK Jr. nomination to lead HHS approved by Senate Finance committee
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination was approved by the Senate Finance Committee this morning, 14-13. The nomination now advances to the Senate floor.
This was a party line vote. There has been some speculation that GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy would vote against advancing Kennedy's nomination; Cassidy is a doctor who has expressed concerns with Kennedy's views on vaccines. However, Cassidy ended up voting with his Republican colleagues.
"With the serious commitments I've received from the administration and the opportunity to make progress on the issues we agree on like healthy foods and a pro-American agenda, I will vote yes," he said in a statement posted to X just before his vote.
Of fucking course he did
Meritocracy in action.
Donald Trump will be first sitting president to attend Super Bowl (https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/donald-trump-will-be-first-sitting-president-to-attend-super-bowl)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXhsEzgbEAAmgRZ.jpg)
(https://preview.redd.it/donald-trump-thanks-brittany-mahomes-for-all-her-support-v0-pnrmdxuyttmd1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=e94f44acb75b66209b89d35bfe48db5ec0cbb551)
Hates Taylor Swift, likes Brittany Mahomes...is he rooting for the Chiefs or the Eagles? :laughing:
This also means this will be the first time the 'nuclear football' has been at the Super Bowl..
Who the fuck is Brittany Mahomes?
Think Swift will have problems getting bookings now, if the president has publicly said he hates her? You know what he's like about revenge!
You've got to love the hyperbole: the greatest and most powerful political movement in the USA? What about the civil rights movement, BLM, the protests against AIDS, the anti-war movement during Vietnam, to name but a few?
Can we have some more appropriate meanings for MAGA guys?
Mean Asshole Goes Amuck
Murder All Gender Assignments
Move Aside God: America
Maybe Another Grotesque Announcement
More Arms & Guns America
Mexicans Are Going Away
Make All Guns Assault
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 04, 2025, 11:01 PMYou've got to love the hyperbole: the greatest and most powerful political movement in the USA? What about the civil rights movement, BLM, the protests against AIDS, the anti-war movement during Vietnam, to name but a few?
Can we have some more appropriate meanings for MAGA guys?
Mean Asshole Goes Amuck
Murder All Gender Assignments
Move Aside God: America
Maybe Another Grotesque Announcement
More Arms & Guns America
Mexicans Are Going Away
Make All Guns Assault
It sounds to me like you're tired of all the 'winning'. :laughing:
WaPo.
QuoteTrump says U.S. would 'take over' Gaza Strip, says Palestinians should leave in news conference with Netanyahu
In a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump suggested Gazans should leave the war-torn area and that the U.S. would step in and "develop it," possibly on a long-term basis and with U.S. military involvement.
In before "it's a negotiating tactic."
I fell asleep listening to that stupid news conference. Along with having Chinese food for dinner. I ended up having some fucked up dreams. Anyways, all of what he said makes sense, I knew they were gonna do that. Prime real estate beach front property over all the dead bodies that have passed away. Everything built there is going to be haunted as shit. Worse than building over an Indian burial ground.
Also instead of Mexicans are going away.
Mexicans Aren't Going Anywhere.
I just like calling them MAGAts though pronounced maggots.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Feb 05, 2025, 03:20 AMWaPo.
QuoteTrump says U.S. would 'take over' Gaza Strip, says Palestinians should leave in news conference with Netanyahu
In a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump suggested Gazans should leave the war-torn area and that the U.S. would step in and "develop it," possibly on a long-term basis and with U.S. military involvement.
From 2 weeks ago...
George Galloway - Interview with Chris Hedges
"Come to sunny Gaza! Stay at the brand new, purpose-built, state of the art Trump Gaza Hotel, where the rich and famous, and those without any sort of a conscience come to relax. Don't be put off by stories of guests waking up in the night to hear the cries of children - it's just the wind."
PS. No Palestinians.
Quote from: Jwb on Feb 05, 2025, 05:10 AMIn before "it's a negotiating tactic."
^ Yes, or perhaps more likely a deflection tactic: get the media howling about a new, ridiculous idea and not quizzing the President about the antics of Elon Musk: not elected, not given security clearance or Senate confirmation, but with impunity accessing US State info, dismantling State departments and blocking aid to the needy - a particularly vile look coming from the richest man in the world. I wonder how the Christian Nationalist preachers are going to spin that one in their Sunday sermons:-
"
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.Perhaps they'll be ripping that page out of their Trump bibles
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 05, 2025, 07:51 AMI fell asleep listening to that stupid news conference. Along with having Chinese food for dinner. I ended up having some fucked up dreams. Anyways, all of what he said makes sense, I knew they were gonna do that. Prime real estate beach front property over all the dead bodies that have passed away. Everything built there is going to be haunted as shit. Worse than building over an Indian burial ground.
Don't worry, DJ: as Trump's endlessly recurring Infrastructure weeks demonstrated, the Trump admin show no appetite for building anything other than border walls and internment camps.
QuoteAlso instead of Mexicans are going away.
Mexicans Aren't Going Anywhere.
^ :laughing: Like it!
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 05, 2025, 03:13 PM"Don't be put off by stories of guests waking up in the night to hear the cries of children - it's just the wind."
You could write a good horror story around that line. :devil:
Yes I would probably call it Ghosts of Gaza or Gaza Ghastly. Also thinking of having their ghosts haunt Trump around the White House, till finally he decides to shoot his own reflection in the mirror, thinking this is where the sounds come from. Mirror explodes and a large piece of glass decaptitates him. Oh, spoiler, by the way.
Anyhoo, looks like he's not having everything his own way...
News Alert: Federal judge blocks Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship
A second federal judge on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump's executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship, saying it's likely unconstitutional and "runs counter to our nation's 250-year history of citizenship by birth."
The nationwide preliminary injunction from US District Judge Deborah Boardman is a significant ruling against Trump's Day 1 order, which was swiftly met with legal challenges and put on hold days later by a separate judge.
https://x.com/VanFromNY/status/1886595163398586794?t=qSvZY_VjKyzs8HyxBRF5vQ&s=19
Apparently, Snoop Dogg is "beyond sad" for appearing in this advert against antisemitism.
The tweet has got 150k likes.
The comments are telling.
Another interesting story on the history of America trying to buy Greenland...
https://www.history.com/news/greenland-united-states-seward-cold-war?cmpid=email-hist-inside-history-2024-0205-02052025&om_rid=
BBC reports on why Trump's "Middle East Rivieria" will never happen.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2pwjgp59do?at_campaign=crm&at_medium=emails&at_campaign_type=owned&at_objective=conversion&at_ptr_name=salesforce&at_ptr_type=media&at_creation=[82980_NEWS_NLB_DEF_WK05_THU_06_FEB]-20250206-[bbcnews_trumpgazaplanwonthappenjeremybowenanalysis_newsmiddleeast]
What they're going to do to the DOE is the most irritating because they just don't like that the intelligentsia disagrees with them. Education doesn't have a liberal bias though, reality does. Facts don't care about your feelings.
Now he's taking sanctions against the ICC. Christ on a bike, is this man so dense and arrogant that he... ah, forget I asked. ::)
And they just keep coming!
President Donald Trump signed more executive actions on Friday, aiming to review and potentially roll back policies that restrict Second Amendment rights and creating a new faith office at the White House.
Gun control: The order directs the attorney general to review and assess any actions taken by the federal government between January 2021 and January 2025 — during the Biden administration — that they view as infringing upon Second Amendment rights.
This includes evaluating regulations, international agreements and actions by agencies such as the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), as well as reports related to gun violence prevention.
After that review, the order states the attorney general should "present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans."
Faith office: Another order establishes the White House Faith Office, aimed at strengthening the relationship between the federal government and faith-based entities. The office will be led by a senior adviser and will work closely with other offices in the executive branch, the order said.
"The executive branch is committed to ensuring that all executive departments and agencies (agencies) honor and enforce the Constitution's guarantee of religious liberty and to ending any form of religious discrimination by the Federal Government," the order said.
Aid to South Africa: Trump also signed an executive order to freeze assistance to South Africa over a law which allows the government to seize farmland from ethnic minorities without compensation. It also emphasized that US actions are in response to these human rights violations and the potential national security threats posed by South Africa's foreign policy decisions, including its ties with Iran and its stance on Israel.
According to the order, the US will no longer support South Africa with foreign aid if these policies continue. It also directs the US to assist Afrikaners who are fleeing South Africa due to discrimination, including helping them resettle in the US through refugee programs. Additionally, US agencies are told to stop providing any aid to South Africa unless it's deemed necessary for other reasons.
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-panama-japan-news-02-07-25/index.html?utm_source=cnn_Breaking+News&utm_medium=email&bt_ee=BFHODD2J0FYfMSZiKvRePEN3wfkKoadfj9o9T4pytyiSR5EYyWYqqnMhe%2F9Mx0qW&bt_ts=1738967296063
^^^ Afrikaners as refugees. :devil: What about all the Gazans who managed to avid being killed by US supplied munitions?
Anyway, aren't Afrikaaners the ones who instigated apartheid? To speak of them as fucking refugees now is surely akin to calling Nazis on the run after the war as being oppressed and marginalised! ::)
The link is to a website keeping track of all the lawsuits (currently 41) that have been filed against the Trump regime/junta as a result of the Executive Orders and directives.
https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email (https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email)
Judge to decide fate of Trump's federal buyout offer (https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-decide-fate-trumps-federal-buyout-offer/story?id=118642464)QuoteMore than 65,000 government employees have already accepted the offer.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Feb 08, 2025, 10:59 PMThe link is to a website keeping track of all the lawsuits (currently 41) that have been filed against the Trump regime/junta as a result of the Executive Orders and directives.
https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email (https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email)
Does anyone think that these law suits are going to intimidate or impede Trump+allies? The President is a felon immune from prosecution, ready to pardon anyone who does his bidding. My plan: glance at that tracker in 3 years time to see just how futile all the litigation will have been.
___________________________________________
USAID: one graph and one opinion that suggests this style of "shut down and freeze" governance is gonna cause more trouble than its worth:-
USAID: How much was it costing America before being frozen:
(https://borgenproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2018-03-29-at-11.11.21-AM-530x402.png)
The lawsuits are just temporary and then they will get sent up the ladder to the Supreme Court where the people that he put into the SCOTUS will just do whatever he wants. It's all part of the design.
Trump says Palestinians wouldn't be allowed back into Gaza under his plan (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-palestinians-wouldnt-allowed-back-gaza-plan-rcna191491)
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 10, 2025, 06:33 PMThe lawsuits are just temporary and then they will get sent up the ladder to the Supreme Court where the people that he put into the SCOTUS will just do whatever he wants. It's all part of the design.
Yeah, at this point only disruptive action on the part of citizens can stop him. These actions come with sacrifice, where as voting for Democrats was basically cost free.
Top Justice Department official orders prosecutors to drop charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams (https://apnews.com/article/eric-adams-indictment-109ef48bd49bc8adc1850709c99bf666)QuoteNEW YORK (AP) — The Trump administration on Monday ordered federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, arguing in a remarkable departure from longstanding norms that the case was interfering with the mayor's ability to aid the president's crackdown on illegal immigration.
In a two-page memo obtained by The Associated Press, acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, the second in command at the Justice Department, told prosecutors in New York that they were "directed to dismiss" the bribery charges against Adams immediately.
He said the order was not based on any assessment of the strength of the case, but rather because it had come too close to Adams re-election campaign and distracted from his efforts to assist in the administration's priorities.
"The pending prosecution has unduly restricted Mayor Adams' ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime," Bove wrote.
The intervention and reasoning — that a powerful defendant could be too occupied with official duties to face accountability for alleged crimes — marked an extraordinary deviation from long-standing Justice Department norms, which typically afford independence to federal prosecutors.
Trump directs Treasury to stop minting new pennies, citing cost (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-directs-treasury-to-stop-minting-new-pennies-citing-cost/)
They're cutting off healthcare for trans service members. (https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/hegseth-orders-immediate-pause-gender-affirming-medical-care/story?id=118662488)
I'd say these creatures in the government are monsters, but that's too kind; thinking of them as monstrous can imply that they're big and strong, when in reality they are pathetic spineless worms bullying the most vulnerable among us because to them the human experience is just a fucking game for them to live out their sadistic fantasies.
RFK Jr. confirmed as Trump's health secretary, over Democrats' loud objections (https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/13/nx-s1-5294591/rfk-jr-trump-health-human-services-hhs-vaccines)
https://x.com/drefanzor/status/1890080239092658428
(https://i.postimg.cc/nzXJNt5Q/MAHA.png)
America's Healthcare is gonna be fucked more than it already is
(https://i.ibb.co/ZDFc20b/IMG-9986.png)
Speaking of hats...
Kennedy's "wellness" farms.
QuoteI'm going to dedicate that revenue to creating wellness farms — drug rehabilitation farms — in rural areas all over this country. The biggest industry now in rural areas is prisons. I am going to change that. I'm going to make it so people can go, if you're convicted of a drug offense, or if you have a drug problem, you can go to one of these places for free. They're going to grow their own food, organic food, high-quality food because a lot of the behavioral issues are food-related. A lot of the illnesses are food-related. There won't be any cellphones there. There won't be any screens. We're going to reparent people, restore this connection to community.
Sauce (https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-yes-rfk-jr-030000179.html)
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 13, 2025, 09:08 PM(https://i.ibb.co/ZDFc20b/IMG-9986.png)
Speaking of hats...
I don't get it. ???
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 14, 2025, 03:38 AMI don't get it. ???
She's saying that the white house has turned into a haunted mansion with the ghosts of people's rights.
How is it that in a country stock-full of potential shooters, nobody has tried to kill Elon yet?
Quote from: Jwb on Feb 14, 2025, 05:46 AMHow is it that in a country stock-full of potential shooters, nobody has tried to kill Elon yet?
Elon hasn't hired any yet like Trump did.
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Feb 14, 2025, 05:02 AMShe's saying that the white house has turned into a haunted mansion with the ghosts of people's rights.
Ok but what is the hat? The only L I'm familiar with is an L-plate for learner drivers here and in Europe. I don't get the connection, probably an American thing?
Quote from: Jwb on Feb 14, 2025, 05:46 AMHow is it that in a country stock-full of potential shooters, nobody has tried to kill Elon yet?
(https://media.tenor.com/qRnC8-Z_B20AAAAe/south-park-world-of-warcraft.png)
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 14, 2025, 12:30 PMElon hasn't hired any yet like Trump did.
Joke or serious?
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 14, 2025, 08:08 PMOk but what is the hat? The only L I'm familiar with is an L-plate for learner drivers here and in Europe. I don't get the connection, probably an American thing?
Japanese thing, technically
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/30574bbc-c8a5-49c7-b655-69ccb796a6c1/d6yd2e0-aeb8f82c-9019-4ab2-93cd-5d4763fde677.gif?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzMwNTc0YmJjLWM4YTUtNDljNy1iNjU1LTY5Y2NiNzk2YTZjMVwvZDZ5ZDJlMC1hZWI4ZjgyYy05MDE5LTRhYjItOTNjZC01ZDQ3NjNmZGU2NzcuZ2lmIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.JlHFyw67MQB_L4BZ63DjFNQaHFdZRYKtgpOmBsNSOgA)
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 14, 2025, 08:14 PMJoke or serious?
Hilarious that you even have to ask
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 14, 2025, 09:33 PMHilarious that you even have to ask
Is it?
Americans love a conspiracy theory and I've seen plenty of people accuse Trump of staging that shooting.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 14, 2025, 09:41 PMIs it?
Americans love a conspiracy theory and I've seen plenty of people accuse Trump of staging that shooting.
Yes but I'm no conspiracy nut. Most conspiracy people tend to be on the right but there are a few that I've seen on the left with some wild theories about Starlink helping with the voting process to steal the election and so on.
White House posts shocking Valentine's Day message sending social media into frenzy (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14398817/white-house-shocking-valentines-day-message-deportation.html)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2025/02/14/17/95224581-14398817-image-a-15_1739555311650.jpg)
😂😂😂😂😂
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 14, 2025, 09:41 PMIs it?
Americans love a conspiracy theory and I've seen plenty of people accuse Trump of staging that shooting.
I think it's possible because they're taking so much from the Putin playbook. There's a lot that was done to confuse the public.
However I don't think it's that crazy that a lone shooter was able to get a shot off. Those things do happen.
Quote from: SGR on Feb 14, 2025, 10:30 PMWhite House posts shocking Valentine's Day message sending social media into frenzy (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14398817/white-house-shocking-valentines-day-message-deportation.html)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2025/02/14/17/95224581-14398817-image-a-15_1739555311650.jpg)
Technically speaking, of course, violets are not blue. So, my amendment:
Republicans are red
Violets are violet
We think every immigrant
A potential Saudi pilot.
My thoughts on RFK.
(https://i.ibb.co/G4mS5n27/IMG-0013.jpg)
You know every time you post, I see your cat avvy saying "Come on then, Trump! Put 'em up! Let's be 'avin' ya? I'll batter ye! Oh, scared, are ye?" :laughing:
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 15, 2025, 03:25 PMYou know every time you post, I see your cat avvy saying "Come on then, Trump! Put 'em up! Let's be 'avin' ya? I'll batter ye! Oh, scared, are ye?" :laughing:
Francesca would rip off his smug bronzer-smeared face. :laughing:
And then she'd get a ticker-tape parade.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNw7SkEWoAAl6iV.png)
WaPo:
QuoteUkraine rejects initial Trump request for half its rare mineral wealth
Ukraine is hoping to reach a deal on a counter-offer, but the opening proposal rippled through European diplomatic circles not only for its audacity but because the war-ravaged country appears ready to play ball.
By Michael Birnbaum, Ellen Francis, Siobhán O'Grady and Jeff Stein
Good for Ukraine. I wouldn't do any deal with Trump that didn't have enforceable benchmarks. Ukraine can probably give up 1/2 it's rare earths, but I would want a written guarantee of membership of NATOE!
Oh look another executive order from the Nazi child rapist death cult known as the Trump administration.
(https://i.ibb.co/nS24w83/dc2e7b75-bc2d-44f1-b21e-798697bfb11d.jpg)
I have a dear friend who is schizophrenic and needs antipsychotics. If fully enacted this order will be a death sentence to countless people.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 16, 2025, 07:16 AMOh look another executive order from the Nazi child rapist death cult known as the Trump administration.
(https://i.ibb.co/nS24w83/dc2e7b75-bc2d-44f1-b21e-798697bfb11d.jpg)
I have a dear friend who is schizophrenic and needs antipsychotics. If fully enacted this order will be a death sentence to countless people.
I think this only applies to children if I'm reading it correctly.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 16, 2025, 12:28 PMI think this only applies to children if I'm reading it correctly.
Yes, it does. I was using my friend as an example of someone who would be completely fucked without meds; I know it won't affect her specifically. But people like her, like can you imagine how many teenagers have been helped by antidepressants etc? I know I was, and quite frankly I don't know if I'd be here without them. These people are needlessly undoing shit that actually helps people, with no suggested alternative treatments, and given how anti-science they are I'm terrified at the prospects.
Not to mention there is precedent re: adults, Trump's EO on gender affirming care says clinics who prescribe it "at any age" could be "investigated" and defunded; RFK has those proposed camps for people who take medication, I wouldn't rule out adults being affected by this sometime down the line. Frankly I think it's bad enough that they're doing it to minors.
Edit: people are already reporting this is happening.
https://bsky.app/profile/qasimrashid.com/post/3libguxanwc26 (https://bsky.app/profile/qasimrashid.com/post/3libguxanwc26)
DOGE prepares gold reserve 'audit' after top Republican invites Elon Musk to review Fort Knox (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14403697/gold-reserve-doge-audit-fort-knox-elon-musk.html)
This might get interesting - the last audit of the 'largest gold reserve in the US' happened in 1974. 50 years ago. A true audit though would require an assay of each bar to ensure that it's all truly gold. That would be expensive and time consuming. Though the desire to do this is definitely a throwback to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul worries Fort Knox gold is gone, CNN - 2011 (https://money.cnn.com/2011/06/24/news/economy/ron_paul_gold_audit/)
If it happens though, and all the gold is not there, there's gonna be some questions.
https://x.com/JoJoFromJerz/status/1890252571522347450?t=0ZCH2JWqU0b7B16xchlagg&s=19
Let all those Trump voters suffer. I have no empathy for them. They were too stupid and fell for his con.
Yeah there's blame to be heaped on the useless Dems but really, American Trump voters have no excuse. They saw a preview of how Trump was in power, and they thought, what: let's have that times a million?? Sometimes you do have to wonder a) where people leave their brains and b) how people can be so self-compartamentlised, that they will only see what (they think) will benefit them and ignore all the really bad stuff that clearly is going to happen.
Here's my analogy, just thought up now: Two people in a car, heading over a cliff.
Passenger: "We're going to crash! We're going to die!"
Driver: "Shut up! I love this song on the radio!"
Passenger: "But you won't be able to hear it if we're DEAD!"
Driver (humming along): "I'll worry about that when it happens. Listen to that solo!"
Passenger (frantic): "It's happening NOW! LOOK!"
Driver (looking): "OH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIII......!"
I also blame those who did not vote, who could have potentially stopped this had they got off their arses and into polling stations. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph" etc.
Yeah the Dems in charge didn't give people a good enough reason to vote for them. So some people stayed at home or threw away their vote on that grifter Jill Stein.
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 14, 2025, 08:10 PM(https://media.tenor.com/qRnC8-Z_B20AAAAe/south-park-world-of-warcraft.png)
Glad you asked. Here's how
Step 1: write manifesto
Step 2: ? ? ?
Step 3: profit
Nobody even remembers the name of the CEO that Luigi killed. People got to have their little moment of feeling like the billionares are trembling with fear. But that's clearly an illusion. Elon is raping our future right in front of the entire world. And nobody is going to do shit about it. A nation full of well armed retards who are eager to be some South Africans slaves. So pathetic. Where's Mario when you need him?
Quote from: SGR on Feb 17, 2025, 12:06 AMDOGE prepares gold reserve 'audit' after top Republican invites Elon Musk to review Fort Knox (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14403697/gold-reserve-doge-audit-fort-knox-elon-musk.html)
This might get interesting - the last audit of the 'largest gold reserve in the US' happened in 1974. 50 years ago. A true audit though would require an assay of each bar to ensure that it's all truly gold. That would be expensive and time consuming. Though the desire to do this is definitely a throwback to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul worries Fort Knox gold is gone, CNN - 2011 (https://money.cnn.com/2011/06/24/news/economy/ron_paul_gold_audit/)
If it happens though, and all the gold is not there, there's gonna be some questions.
yes, great idea! Let the oligarch count all our gold while he's at it, and trust him to faithfully report back to us how much of it is missing!
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 17, 2025, 08:07 AMhttps://x.com/JoJoFromJerz/status/1890252571522347450?t=0ZCH2JWqU0b7B16xchlagg&s=19
Let all those Trump voters suffer. I have no empathy for them. They were too stupid and fell for his con.
Nah. This kind of behavior not only shows a lack of caring about people over ideas, but it isolates your movement from people when you revel in their suffering.
Nobody deserves to starve. Everybody deserves the chance to grow. Most of these people are just ignorant and if ignorance was a crime we'd all be locked up at some point.
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Feb 17, 2025, 09:14 PMNah. This kind of behavior not only shows a lack of caring about people over ideas, but it isolates your movement from people when you revel in their suffering.
Nobody deserves to starve. Everybody deserves the chance to grow. Most of these people are just ignorant and if ignorance was a crime we'd all be locked up at some point.
100%
I get the urge to see these people suffer, especially with my country's very existence being under threat, but it's not something that makes anything better for anyone. Nobody has to like MAGA people (I certainly fucking don't), but there's two main reasons why it's better to keep an off-ramp open for them. First is that as they themselves get screwed, they are in a position to be turned against Trumpism. Second is that the more alienated and humiliated they become as the consequences are reaped, the more likely they will be to double, triple, and quadruple down and be susceptible to even more extreme and horrific outcomes. Very similar to how people in cults keep tumbling down the rabbit hole. Part of why Trump isn't slowing down is because he will come back to the supporters he's hurt and tell them it's because they didn't go hard enough after their scapegoats and they need to enact even crueler and worse policies. Demagoguery is how he built his cultish base in the first place. MAGA will become even more dangerous the more they're pushed into increasingly vulnerable positions, but that's also when you actually have a window to
maybe reach them.
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Feb 17, 2025, 09:14 PMNah. This kind of behavior not only shows a lack of caring about people over ideas, but it isolates your movement from people when you revel in their suffering.
Nobody deserves to starve. Everybody deserves the chance to grow. Most of these people are just ignorant and if ignorance was a crime we'd all be locked up at some point.
Those people don't care about others so why should I care about them. Fuck taking the high road bullshit. They deserve to suffer for their ignorance. Their ignorance is causing harm to others.
MAGA is a lost cause there is no reaching them. That's just wishful thinking on your part.
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Feb 17, 2025, 09:14 PMNah. This kind of behavior not only shows a lack of caring about people over ideas, but it isolates your movement from people when you revel in their suffering.
Nobody deserves to starve. Everybody deserves the chance to grow. Most of these people are just ignorant and if ignorance was a crime we'd all be locked up at some point.
Totally agree. I was going to say something similar but I stopped myself.
There was a Tory voter who ended up turning on the Tories when they cut working tax credits and it affected her and she had a go at a Tory politician on Question Time (UK politics talk show). She got a lot of abuse and hatred online. If you want people to come over to your way of thinking then that isn't the way to go about things.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 17, 2025, 09:55 PMThose people don't care about others so why should I care about them. Fuck taking the high road bullshit. They deserve to suffer for their ignorance. Their ignorance is causing harm to others.
MAGA is a lost cause there is no reaching them. That's just wishful thinking on your part.
You lost. You need to convince people you're right and they're wrong. If you want to continue losing elections then carry on.
Quote from: Jwb on Feb 17, 2025, 06:59 PMyes, great idea! Let the oligarch count all our gold while he's at it, and trust him to faithfully report back to us how much of it is missing!
To your point, there would be a serious credibility issue if Elon/DOGE was deeply involved in an audit like this one. More to the point, auditing the gold in Fort Knox isn't really in the purview of DOGE - which has essentially subsumed the Obama-created USDS - it's basically the government geek squad, but you can't audit the gold reserves in Fort Knox with database queries and Excel spreadsheets. In other words, the pimply faced college recruits of DOGE simply aren't qualified to inventory, assay and test the purity of a gold hoard. What's really needed if this audit were to happen is an independent (not government affiliated) entity - after all, you don't ask the fox outside the henhouse to go in and tell you how many chickens are there - again though, this whole process, were a full audit to be conducted, would be very time consuming and very expensive. Right now, it's just bullshitting on Twitter, and it's very possible there's no real life or desire to this. I guess we'll see in due time.
There's so much secrecy and smokescreens around gold reserve holdings. I think it was back in the early 2010s, Germany and the Bundesbank had to move heaven and earth to try and inspect their gold holdings (https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-politicians-demand-to-see-gold-in-us-federal-reserve-a-864068.html) which were stored in the basement of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. And there's been much criticism over the years about how China devalues the yuan, manipulates its markets, and isn't transparent about how much gold it has (https://moneyweek.com/investments/commodities/gold/603131/how-much-gold-does-china-own). I don't think America has much of a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing China when they seemingly can't be bothered to perform an audit on their biggest gold depository in over 50 years. It's possible that rather than having less gold than is publicly stated (as many fear), we might actually have more.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 17, 2025, 10:31 PMYou lost. You need to convince people you're right and they're wrong. If you want to continue losing elections then carry on.
Establishment Dems lost and they will continue to lose not from ignoring populous issues.
It has nothing to do with the Maga cult. Also you are talking in terms of tribalism. I don't care about that.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 17, 2025, 10:56 PMEstablishment Dems lost and they will continue to lose not from ignoring populous issues.
It has nothing to do with the Maga cult. Also you are talking in terms of tribalism. I don't care about that.
Lol.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 17, 2025, 10:59 PMLol.
You obviously don't know the intricacies and only think there are two sides.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 17, 2025, 11:02 PMYou obviously don't know the intricacies and only think there are two sides.
OK but you are pretty tribal yourself mate. You wouldn't have the reaction you did if you weren't.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 17, 2025, 11:07 PMOK but you are pretty tribal yourself mate. You wouldn't have the reaction you did if you weren't.
You are consistently attacking me based off of assumptions. I'm just a reactionary person.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 17, 2025, 10:31 PMTotally agree. I was going to say something similar but I stopped myself.
There was a Tory voter who ended up turning on the Tories when they cut working tax credits and it affected her and she had a go at a Tory politician on Question Time (UK politics talk show). She got a lot of abuse and hatred online. If you want people to come over to your way of thinking then that isn't the way to go about things.
You lost. You need to convince people you're right and they're wrong. If you want to continue losing elections then carry on.
If nobody kills Elon Musk then we deserve to be his slaves. It really is that simple.
Like honestly it's all well and good to lecture DJ about what it takes to win an election, but is that how the Republicans win? Do they win by having super nuanced, reserved rhetoric, or do they win by shamelessly lying and by going for the throat? So why exactly is it again that we can't take pleasure in the suffering of our enemies? The sensibilities you are appealing to in order to tell us not to are the same sensibilities that were just defeated by MAGA in the last election.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 17, 2025, 11:17 PMYou are consistently attacking me based off of assumptions. I'm just a reactionary person.
How is what I said an attack? :laughing:
Quote from: Jwb on Feb 17, 2025, 11:22 PMIf nobody kills Elon Musk then we deserve to be his slaves. It really is that simple.
Like honestly it's all well and good to lecture DJ about what it takes to win an election, but is that how the Republicans win? Do they win by having super nuanced, reserved rhetoric, or do they win by shamelessly lying and by going for the throat? So why exactly is it again that we can't take pleasure in the suffering of our enemies? The sensibilities you are appealing to in order to tell us not to are the same sensibilities that were just defeated by MAGA in the last election.
It's probably at least partly what it will take for Dems to win next time yes.
What is? I'm not sure what you are saying.
Why do people still cling to this bogus framing that MAGA gives the slightest fuck about democracy, rationality, reason or has any interest in acting in good faith? Especially now with everything going on. Who the fuck voted for Elon?
We've seen how they handle it when their guy does lose an election...
(https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Insurrection-B.jpeg)
Also, to the extent that elections will even matter much moving forward it's wise to keep in mind that MAGA isn't some incredible electoral juggernaut. They won the general in 2016 and then proceeded to lose or drastically underperform in every midterm and general election cycle (even with the insane GOP gerrymandering etc.) until 2024 where Trump's margin of victory was only around 1.5% of the popular vote. Much as I loathe them too, the Dems do win fairly reliably when they drive their own base out to vote, not when they try to coddle MAGA's little fascist balls. In fact, when they do try to appeal to right-wingers while alienating large swaths of their own base in the process... that's when they do lose.
I'm all for leaving off-ramps for MAGA as things get worse and worse, but make no mistake... this is a movement that must be defeated and ground into dust.
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Feb 17, 2025, 11:50 PMWhy do people still cling to this bogus framing that MAGA gives the slightest fuck about democracy, rationality, reason or has any interest in acting in good faith?
Who has said that?
Do I really need to dignify that question?
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Feb 18, 2025, 12:06 AMDo I really need to dignify that question?
Yes. I'm assuming it was aimed at me.
Quote from: Jwb on Feb 17, 2025, 11:22 PMLike honestly it's all well and good to lecture DJ about what it takes to win an election, but is that how the Republicans win? Do they win by having super nuanced, reserved rhetoric, or do they win by shamelessly lying and by going for the throat?
I'm sure we've discussed this to some degree before, and I was actually talking about this with a colleague recently. Remember in 2016, after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, and then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell completely stonewalled any and all attempts of Obama/Democrats to nominate Merrick Garland to the court (https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now)?
QuoteThere was no precedent for such an action since the period around the Civil War and Reconstruction. No Democratic president had made an appointment while Republicans held the Senate since 1895.
In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "
McConnell was not alone. The 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter saying they had no intention of consenting to any nominee from Obama. No proceedings of any kind were held on Garland's appointment.
Mitch made the argument that the American people should decide the future of the court in the coming general election (in 9 months). But what happened when Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who should have stepped down) died with less than 2 months til the general election in 2020? Republicans (admittedly with a Senate majority) successfully nominated and pushed through Amy Coney Barret, to buttress the conservative majority to 6-3, before the general election took place (which Biden/Democrats would subsequently win).
Democrats, as we saw in the past election, too often defer to decorum, institutions (democracy), and 'good' political etiquette when they have the levers of power, and often times, that's why they lose. Playing it too safe. And based on the past month, they still look anemic and directionless. Back in late December, House Dems voted for 74 yr old Gerry Connolly (https://www.axios.com/2024/12/16/aoc-house-steering-committee-oversight-connolly) to lead the House Oversight Committee over AOC, so looks like they don't have any plans to move on from out of touch geriatric leadership yet. AOC does something extremely well that Trump also does that most Democrats don't seem to know how to do: command attention and drive a message.
Yes we've talked about all of this. I don't have much to add to that but I think you know my thoughts.
I'm also not even saying that like mocking some MAGA family for losing their family farm is going to help the Democrats win the next election. But I think it's probably irrelevant, and the sort of constant self flagellation over various narratives of "why we lost the election" is a lot of hot air and virtue signalling. Good behavior is not rewarded, and karma is a lie. Sorry.
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Feb 17, 2025, 11:50 PMWhy do people still cling to this bogus framing that MAGA gives the slightest fuck about democracy, rationality, reason or has any interest in acting in good faith? Especially now with everything going on. Who the fuck voted for Elon?
We've seen how they handle it when their guy does lose an election...
(https://www.lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Insurrection-B.jpeg)
Also, to the extent that elections will even matter much moving forward it's wise to keep in mind that MAGA isn't some incredible electoral juggernaut. They won the general in 2016 and then proceeded to lose or drastically underperform in every midterm and general election cycle (even with the insane GOP gerrymandering etc.) until 2024 where Trump's margin of victory was only around 1.5% of the popular vote. Much as I loathe them too, the Dems do win fairly reliably when they drive their own base out to vote, not when they try to coddle MAGA's little fascist balls. In fact, when they do try to appeal to right-wingers while alienating large swaths of their own base in the process... that's when they do lose.
I'm all for leaving off-ramps for MAGA as things get worse and worse, but make no mistake... this is a movement that must be defeated and ground into dust.
Not everybody that voted Trump is Maga.
I don't think you guys realize that half of America can't even read above a 5th grade level.
I'm as petty as they come, and sure, I'll laugh at a Maga guy losing SNAP but that still sucks.
Reactionary hate is easy.
Love, empathy, forgiveness and tolerance is hard & it's revolutionary.
Unless it's a cop. Fuck the popo.
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Feb 18, 2025, 01:27 AMNot everybody that voted Trump is Maga.
I don't think you guys realize that half of America can't even read above a 5th grade level.
I hate illiterate swing voters more than I hate MAGA. They are not fit to be voting in the first place.
QuoteI'm as petty as they come, and sure, I'll laugh at a Maga guy losing SNAP but that still sucks.
Reactionary hate is easy.
Love, empathy, forgiveness and tolerance is hard & it's revolutionary.
Unless it's a cop. Fuck the popo.
Well it seems like the alternative to them suffering is actually just to reinforce the impression that they did the right thing by voting for Trump. So it makes sense to want them to feel the pain, as a corrective measure. It's just a bit of tough love.
Remember that, MAGA. When I laugh upon hearing the news that you lost the farm that was in your family's possession for generations because you bet it all on the great white hope, it's only out of love. <3
It's just hard to convince people to join your movement when you laugh in their face when they lose their farm. That pushes people to vote in spite of you.
Organizing in a way to show support for people losing their farms shows that you do actually have their best interests at heart and they will remember that.
Edit: They will lose their farms regardless of how you react to it.
US government 'asking Romania to lift restrictions on Andrew Tate' (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-romania-andrew-tate-b2699849.html)
The party of rapists, for rapists just can't stop telling us all exactly what they are.
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Feb 17, 2025, 09:14 PM... and if ignorance was a crime we'd all be locked up at some point.
^ :laughing: A little piece of forum gold there, Lucem !
Quote from: SGR on Feb 17, 2025, 10:50 PMTo your point, there would be a serious credibility issue if Elon/DOGE was deeply involved in an audit like this one. More to the point, auditing the gold in Fort Knox isn't really in the purview of DOGE - which has essentially subsumed the Obama-created USDS - it's basically the government geek squad, but you can't audit the gold reserves in Fort Knox with database queries and Excel spreadsheets. In other words, the pimply faced college recruits of DOGE simply aren't qualified to inventory, assay and test the purity of a gold hoard. What's really needed if this audit were to happen is an independent (not government affiliated) entity - after all, you don't ask the fox outside the henhouse to go in and tell you how many chickens are there - again though, this whole process, were a full audit to be conducted, would be very time consuming and very expensive. Right now, it's just bullshitting on Twitter, and it's very possible there's no real life or desire to this. I guess we'll see in due time.
Isn't it a little naive to place any faith in the appropriateness of a Trump-backed audit ? From what I've seen of countless Ninja Turtle audits and DOGE blunders
*, the purpose of a Trump-prompted audit isn't about factfinding, it's about flooding the zone, corrupting the data and discrediting the institution being audited.
* DOGE blunders that I have in mind:
(i) firing Office of Nuclear Energy staff before realising their work is essential, and not only that, but firing them in such an abrupt way that the DOGE wizzkids didn't think to get the staffers new contact details.
(ii) Musk's repeated claim that DOGE has uncovered massive fraud because some people registered as being 150 years old are claiming Social Security benefits. He's apparently unaware that the claimant registry system has a default setting of 150 years when the actual age of a claimant is not certain. I suppose that default was set up on the principle that nobody would believe an age of 150 was possible, not imagining that a Musk auditor would so misunderstand the "150" entry as to assume that all "150"s were fraudulent, when all it means is "not known".
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 18, 2025, 01:41 PMIsn't it a little naive to place any faith in the appropriateness of a Trump-backed audit ? From what I've seen of countless Ninja Turtle audits and DOGE blunders*, the purpose of a Trump-prompted audit isn't about factfinding, it's about flooding the zone, corrupting the data and discrediting the institution being audited.
* DOGE blunders that I have in mind:
(i) firing Office of Nuclear Energy staff before realising their work is essential, and not only that, but firing them in such an abrupt way that the DOGE wizzkids didn't think to get the staffers new contact details.
(ii) Musk's repeated claim that DOGE has uncovered massive fraud because some people registered as being 150 years old are claiming Social Security benefits. He's apparently unaware that the claimant registry system has a default setting of 150 years when the actual age of a claimant is not certain. I suppose that default was set up on the principle that nobody would believe an age of 150 was possible, not imagining that a Musk auditor would so misunderstand the "150" entry as to assume that all "150"s were fraudulent, when all it means is "not known".
It's a fair point, and as I mentioned, if DOGE were to be responsible and/or deeply involved in a Fort Knox audit, there would be a serious credibility problem. I think there are probably two things going on here which could be considered separately (since you mentioned "Trump-backed"):
1) The appropriateness of an audit of Fort Knox and the biggest US gold depository (i.e. is it worthwhile or justified to do the first full audit in 50 years, or is it good enough that the treasury secretary pokes his head in there once a year just to see if there are still piles of gold around?)
2) How would the motivations of the current administration affect how we view and judge the results of the audit, should they be made public?
Even if an independent auditor (with some level of bipartisan support) completed the task of auditing Fort Knox, if Trump (and/or Elon) immediately used the results of the audit as a political cudgel, the credibility of the audit would be tarnished (e.g. "Looks like Sleepy Joe and Crooked Hillary stole some of our gold! We have 2% less gold than we thought! We used to be a rich nation, but not any more. Such a sad day for our country! Investigations will quickly be under way! Stay tuned!"). It could just be that we're so polarized and surrounded by poor media/information ecosystems that at best, only half of the country would even believe the results of the audit even if it was found that all the gold is there and accounted for, and the audit was done correctly, transparently, and by the books. It would probably go the same way if Biden backed a Fort Knox audit 2 or 3 years ago.
Trump: "The audit is complete, and all the gold in Fort Knox is present and accounted for!"
Democrats: "Uh-huh...suuuuure it is..."
Biden: "The audit is complete, and all the gold in Fort Knox is present and accounted for!"
Republicans: "Uh-huh...suuuuure it is..."
Per the SSA, yes, Musk is looking at those results with complete confirmation bias. He believes there is massive fraud in social security, and so one of the junior devs probably compiled that spreadsheet with the age buckets after doing a few queries on the database, and they're not considering outlier data or anomalous data. I work in tech, and I can tell you that large databases will almost always have anomalous data like this. It's not evidence of fraud. They're going to need to dig much deeper and look at some of these records on a case by case basis if they want to see what's truly going on. Many computer systems have what's known as an 'epoch time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_(computing))'. It's essentially a fixed date which the computer uses as a reference (plus the # of elapsed seconds since this date) to measure the current system time. So often times, when you're accessing specific native date types, and the underlying data of said type is null or corrupted, you will often run into this fixed date. You also need to consider the tool or software that you're using to display this data - what defaults exist there, whether or not there's automatic typecasting, etc.
The SSA is most certainly a legacy application. When working on something like that, it's not just outdated code that is the problem, but it's all the business rules embedded in that program - you can, if you understand the language, technically understand what is happening, but unless you have a firm grasp on the business rules (or in the case of the SSA, the laws and applicable standard operating procedures), you probably won't understand
why it's happening. To get a sense of this, and how the SSA's wide set of policies might affect the data, just take a look at the publicly available POMS (Program Operations Manual System) on the SSA's website (https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0200302000). And this is just the one about how 'proof of age' is handled, to give a sense of all the different exceptions and various circumstances that need to be accounted for - now we can imagine how this might necessitate not only a very messy and chaotic codebase, but also anomalous data. There are probably many exceptional circumstances that might skew the data one way or another. For example, one person might be dead, but their surviving spouse might still be collecting their social security as a survivor's benefit (so in some instances, it might look like there are still social security payouts to a dead person, but it's actually to their surviving spouse). I'm reminded of a recent story...the last surviving Civil War widow actually died in 2020 (https://veteransbreakfastclub.org/last-civil-war-widow/#:~:text=When%20Bolin%20died%20in%201939,So%2C%20Helen%20never%20did.). Hard to believe, right? Well she was 17 when she married a 90+ year old Civil War veteran - she was his caretaker and he married her so that she could collect his pension after he passed away. After receiving threats from his daughters though, she never applied for the pension. But imagine if she had. If you didn't know the story and saw that a Civil War veteran's pension was still being paid out in 2019, you'd probably have assumed it was erroneous (or fraudulent) too...but in this case, it would not have been.
Some have said online that the age of '150' comes from a COBOL (an old programming language that is still widely in use by govt and banks) epoch date of May 20, 1875 - but I have not found, and am not aware of any COBOL epoch date like this. I'm guessing this is just something that picked up steam in various social media comments from people lightly familiar with stuff like this and it serves as an easy way to make non-tech people understand some of the problems we might be looking at - but I don't think it's accurate. At least, I'm aware of no epoch date/standard like that - it's certainly possible that the system the govt is using is homegrown enough that it has its own sentinel values regarding dates that result in some of the data we are seeing, but that's not currently known. We'd probably need to know exactly which system/OS is truly being utilized here to get closer. My guess, based on how long the program has been in place, is that the government is using some kind of IBM mainframe or midrange system. But even COBOL's handling of dates is different depending on exactly which OS we're talking about in subset, e.g.:
COBOL for IBM AIX (https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/cobol-aix/5.1?topic=times-feedback-token):
QuoteThe beginning of the Lilian date range is Friday 15 October 1582, the date of adoption of the Gregorian calendar. Lilian dates before this date are undefined. Therefore:
Day zero is 00:00:00 14 October 1582.
Day one is 00:00:00 15 October 1582.
COBOL for IBM z/OS (https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/cobol-zos/6.4?topic=functions-date-integer):
QuoteDATE-OF-INTEGER ... A positive integer that represents a number of days succeeding December 31, 1600, in the Gregorian calendar. The valid range is 1 to 3,067,671, which corresponds to dates ranging from January 1, 1601 thru December 31, 9999.
All this to say that when it comes to dates and computing systems, all may not be as it appears on the surface, and if Elon/DOGE really want to audit these systems, they probably need less junior devs and more greybeards. :laughing:
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 18, 2025, 11:57 AMUS government 'asking Romania to lift restrictions on Andrew Tate' (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-romania-andrew-tate-b2699849.html)
The party of rapists, for rapists just can't stop telling us all exactly what they are.
I do have a list of Republican sex offenders and it is loooooooong.
And for the record, my "revolutionary compassion" does not extend to politicians.
Can you really blame Americans for being so distrustful of institutions when nearly every aspect of American society is a sham? An entire economy based around a race to the bottom where the last honest man is separated by his dollar by the scam, every sector predatory from financial, to education, to pharmaceutical.
The answer is probably, yes. Still, maybe it's fitting that a nation born out of the original scamming of the native Americans should have for its last president the Supreme Huckster.
Fucking hell,
@SGR ! I hope there's not going to be a test after that!! :laughing:
:laughing:
Yes, SGR, I'm afraid I also found your post to be daunting, dense and detailed.
________________________________
For anyone struggling to keep up with the deluge of BS eminating from the American President, here's a useful summary of the disinformation so far:-
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/20/politics/analysis-trumps-13-biggest-lies-first-month-2025/index.html
I probably went a little overboard with the SSA stuff, my apologies. It's not often I get to talk about databases, epoch time, and programming conventions in conjunction with politics headlines. :laughing:
In recent Fort Knox developments:
https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1892421435508851149
It's not clear who "we" is in this context.
USA Today makes it sound like Musk is simply urging 'US officials' to conduct an audit.
Elon Musk urges US to audit gold at Fort Knox base for first time in over 50 years (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/18/elon-musk-gold-fort-knox/79102837007/)While the AP makes it sound like Trump said Musk would be 'looking at Fort Knox' to verify gold is there (I think they are basing it on that clip of him talking in the plane, but he used the more nebulous 'we'):
Trump wants to know if there's gold in Fort Knox. (There is) (https://apnews.com/article/fort-knox-gold-elon-musk-trump-f84f9f473d0551e7b055363e58f85759)Forbes had the following article, and they point out a detail that's easy to overlook:
Trump Joins Elon Musk In Targeting Fort Knox Gold—What We Know About Its $400 Billion Supply (https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2025/02/20/trump-joins-elon-musk-in-targeting-fort-knox-gold-what-we-know-about-its-400-billion-supply/)QuoteWith gold trading at more than $2,940 per troy ounce on the open market Tuesday, that means the Fort Knox gold has a market value of $434 billion, more than the market value of Europe's most valuable public company, Tiffany and Louis Vuitton parent LVMH.
However, the government denotes the value of this gold at Fort Knox as just $6 billion based on the government-set book value for gold of $42.22 per troy ounce.
BullionStar (https://www.bullionstar.com/blogs/jp-koning/golds-official-price-is-42-and-maybe-thats-a-good-thing/) has a pretty good explanation of this archaic per/troy oz value of gold.
QuoteTo understand what is at stake, let's start with a few stylized facts about U.S. monetary gold:
- Central banks that keep gold on their balance sheet tend to hold physical gold. But the U.S. Federal Reserve doesn't actually hold physical metal. Instead, it owns gold certificates.
- The Fed registers the value of these gold certificates on its books at $11 billion. It has used this same number for decades.
- These certificates have been issued to the Fed by the U.S. Treasury, a different branch of the Federal government.
- To "back" these certificates, the Treasury in turn holds physical gold. According to the September 30, 2018 Status Report of U.S. Government Gold Reserve, the U.S. Treasury currently records 261,498,926 fine troy ounces of gold in reserves.
- The Fed's Treasury gold certificates are quite odd. They do not provide the Fed with a claim on a fixed weight of gold held at the Treasury. Rather, they provide the Fed with a claim on $11 billion dollars worth of gold. It would be as if your coat check tag constituted a claim on $40 worth of coat, rather than the coat itself.
How many ounces of gold does the $11 billion claim entitle the Fed to? That depends on the price of gold that is used in the calculation.
At the official price of $42.22, the Fed's $11 billion in gold certificates lay claim to 261 million ounces of gold held at the U.S. Treasury ($11,000,000,000/$42.22). So pretty much every bit of the 261,498,927 ounces held at the Treasury is the property of the Fed.
We can now start to see some of the complications involved in marking the official gold price to market. Setting the official price at today's level of $1225 per ounce, the Fed's $11 billion worth of gold certificates would constitute a claim on just 9 million ounces of the yellow metal ($11,000,000,000/$1225). That is, of the 261,498,927 ounces held at the Treasury, just 3.4% would now be earmarked to satisfy the Fed's gold certificates. This would deprive the Fed of 96.6% of the ounces that had previously been stored on its behalf. The remaining 252 million or so ounces of gold would henceforth constitute the property of the U.S. Treasury.
And the calculation above is from a few years back using old numbers. If you used the current spot price of gold ($2945/oz) the calculation would be as follows ($11,000,000,000/$2945) => 3,735,144 oz => (3,735,144/261,498,927) = 1.4% of the gold now earmarked to satisfy the Fed's gold certs, leaving 98.6% of the gold as property of the U.S. treasury.
One of Trump's recent executive orders (https://www.reuters.com/markets/wealth/trump-signs-executive-order-create-sovereign-wealth-fund-2025-02-03/) was to develop a plan for a sovereign wealth fund. NPR recently had a decent primer article (https://www.npr.org/2025/02/10/nx-s1-5286464/what-is-a-sovereign-wealth-fund-and-why-does-president-trump-want-one) on sovereign wealth funds - it's certainly not a new idea. Since we were talking about what the true motivations for a Fort Knox audit might be, perhaps it's not simply to verify and ensure that we have all the gold we say we do, but rather to drive a revaluation of our gold to buttress a sovereign wealth fund.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was quick to downplay this idea (but you know how that goes):
https://x.com/BloombergTV/status/1892561717193785641
The Gold Observer (https://www.thegoldobserver.com/p/how-the-us-treasury-can-cash-in-big) recently had an excellent writeup on how this process would play out (in a legal sense, and in an accounting sense) were it to come to fruition though - Congress would first need to approve an increase in the statuatory price of gold, and the treasury would need to issue new gold certificates to the Federal Reserve. This whole process would likely be bullish for gold, but weaken the dollar.
Right. I want David Copperfield (the magician, not Dickens character) to make the entire Fort Knox building disappear, and see what Trusk have to say about that! He can do it, you know. :laughing:
The American Nazi Party strikes again. (https://bsky.app/profile/joshuaeakle.com/post/3linpqhzrqk2g)
Really looking forward to the whimpering cowards in the mainstream media tell us all about how this is just fine and dandy. Gonna be just so fun.
69 million married women at risk of being stuck off the voter rolls, at least temporarily.
QuoteMany of you have seen stories about the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, technically called H.R. 22. You're asking us if it's real. It is. In January, the GOP pledged to fast-track the bill, naming it one of their priorities this Congressional session. Lawmakers will vote on it soon.
Here's what it would do. First, and most importantly, it would make Americans provide some kind of formal document to prove their citizenship every time they register to vote (or re-register, as some places require after, say, a change in address). A driver's license, REAL ID, military ID, or tribal ID wouldn't be sufficient. Approved documents include a passport or birth certificate.
What's the problem? Well, it adds hurdles to voting, which are shown to depress the vote. And it would instantly disenfranchise 69 million married women who changed their last name. Their married names don't match their birth certificate, so they would be unregistered until they took actions to prove their citizenship. Some challenges: tens of millions of American citizens don't have access to the needed documents.
What if, for example, you're one of the 140 million Americans without a passport? Or if you lost your documents in an accident, and the government becomes very slow about providing you with your birth certificate or passport? The SAVE Act would either prevent you from voting or make it extremely difficult.
That's not all. The bill would also force states to conduct regular voter purges, which almost always result in legitimate citizens losing their right to vote. It would punish election workers with up to five years imprisonment for registering someone to vote without the right documents — even if they're actually a citizen. Because you'd have to prove your citizenship in person with original documents, there would be no registration by mail or online.
Switched party? Moved houses? Got married? Better get all your documentation in order and wait in line at a voter registration office, no matter how far that is, or no voting rights for you!
It should be on the state to prove you're ineligible to vote. Voting is not a privilege that the state grants, it is a right of the people that the state must accommodate. Even requiring ID I think is a violation of the constitution per the 14th 15th, and 19th amendment.
Requiring a birth certificate would be absolutely insane.
Not unexpectedly, Trump has fired Gen. Charles Brown the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs because he is too keen on DEI, and replaced him with a 3 star who in the past has apparently claimed that the US could wipe out IS and Al Q in a week.
Signs of change...
QuoteTide Change: A series of new polls shows Trump's approval rating is falling. A majority of Americans disapprove of his performance and think he's gone too far with his executive power. Consumer sentiment is also down; people are worried about inflation and tariffs specifically. Growing pushback to Trump and Musk's assault on our institutions could be filtering through to Republican lawmakers, who are reportedly growing uneasy about the impact cuts will have on their constituents, with some facing increasingly angry calls from voters. Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA) was shouted down and booed when he tried to defend Musk and DOGE at a town hall in his reliably red district. Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-OR) faced similar issues at his own town hall on the other side of the country. The pressure has some Republicans speaking out: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) told her constituents that the situation "requires us as a Congress" to start "speaking out and standing up" to Trump and Musk; Rep. Troy Balderson said Thursday that Trump's executive orders were "getting out of control." Trump reportedly freaked out about the falling numbers. At least some of the American public is telling their leaders they want the DOGE destruction machine to stop. And it's not just Democrats.
QuoteA CNN poll published Thursday found that just 47 percent of Americans approve of Trump's performance, while 52 percent disapprove. Moreover, 55 percent of respondents don't think he's focused enough on the most pressing issues in the U.S., and 62 percent don't think he's done enough to bring the costs of common goods down.
The Washington Post and Gallup released similarly negative results this week. The Post-Ipsos poll found that 57 percent of Americans thought that Trump was "exceeding his authority" and that 48 percent opposed his actions outright. Gallup's poll showed that 51 percent of Americans disapproved of Trump.
(https://i.ibb.co/gL94y6f1/shitlords.png)
They're trying to play this shit off as a "joke" now apparently.
If it salutes like a nazi, removes women and minorities from job positions like a nazi, polices reproduction like a nazi, attacks trans and gender non-conforming people like a nazi, quotes antisemitic dogwhistles like a nazi (in Bannon's case saying very openly antisemitic things), consolidates power and authority like a nazi, denies science in favor of personal beliefs like a nazi, worships chest-beating 'masculinity' like a nazi, is unsupportive of disabled people like a nazi, and builds concentration camps for minorities like a nazi, it's a nazi.
Actions speak louder than words, and I'm instantly suspicious of anyone who is trying to play this off as a "joke" or buy into the flimsy attempts at plausible deniability this nazi administration is trying to pull. Being ignorant or stupid isn't an excuse anymore, bending over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to people who have telegraphed exactly what they are will instantly earn you my distrust and frankly, speaking as a Jewish trans woman, my disgust.
The one thing that's true about Hitler and the Nazis is that they could never have remained in power without the tacit approval of the people. Nobody can. If everyone in NK turned against Kim, he's gone. It's keeping people both in line and onside that keeps dictators in power. Trusk can't maintain power on their own; it may be hyperbolic to say it, but I think the prospect of some sort of turn against him, even a mini-revolution, could be on the horizon. How many other presidents have had such low approval numbers less than a month into their second term? Which is essentially Trump's first, as they weren't consecutive terms. Can the American people finally open their eyes and stand up to tyranny? As many of you said here before, when it starts hurting their pocket, taking their jobs and hitting home where it hurts, the man behind the curtain is going to be revealed and that whole delicate house of red-and-black cards which is based on hatred, bigotry, fear and mistrust, may be about to come tumbling down. Let's hope so.
All incarcerated trans people are going to be moved to prisons matching the genitals they had at birth. (https://www.npr.org/2025/02/21/nx-s1-5305282/trans-inmates-federal-prison-policy-transfers)
I hope hell is real just so the inhuman filth that makes up this administration can go there.
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 22, 2025, 03:38 PMThe one thing that's true about Hitler and the Nazis is that they could never have remained in power without the tacit approval of the people. Nobody can. If everyone in NK turned against Kim, he's gone. It's keeping people both in line and onside that keeps dictators in power. Trusk can't maintain power on their own; it may be hyperbolic to say it, but I think the prospect of some sort of turn against him, even a mini-revolution, could be on the horizon. How many other presidents have had such low approval numbers less than a month into their second term? Which is essentially Trump's first, as they weren't consecutive terms. Can the American people finally open their eyes and stand up to tyranny? As many of you said here before, when it starts hurting their pocket, taking their jobs and hitting home where it hurts, the man behind the curtain is going to be revealed and that whole delicate house of red-and-black cards which is based on hatred, bigotry, fear and mistrust, may be about to come tumbling down. Let's hope so.
Reminds me of the Churchill quote from pre WWII.
"Dictators ride to and fro on tigers they dare not dismount, and now the tigers are getting hungry."
I get the feeling that Mike Walz is being a touch optimistic with his on the verge of an "improved" agreement stchik.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1893357932995322178 (https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1893357932995322178)
Doesn't that picture though scream the caption "Look, just keep smiling and nothing bad will happen to your country, got it?"
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 23, 2025, 02:25 AMDoesn't that picture though scream the caption "Look, just keep smiling and nothing bad will happen to your country, got it?"
Maybe I should retract that post...
https://x.com/behizytweets/status/1893351121386905911?s=46&t=QjfV_ZHNvP2ulzJ-j8JFcg (https://x.com/behizytweets/status/1893351121386905911?s=46&t=QjfV_ZHNvP2ulzJ-j8JFcg)
WaPo.....
QuoteFederal workers must answer email asking what they did last week — or lose their jobs, Musk says
Elon Musk wrote on X that he was acting on Donald Trump's orders, apparently referencing a social media post from the president earlier Saturday encouraging the billionaire to be harsher in slashing the federal workforce.
https://x.com/Matthewtravis08/status/1893423626138878095?t=6DNXR7G5IOygQNfk8T9KhQ&s=19
I'm so back in my petty era. All Trump voters need to feel the pain of their decision. Actions have consequences.
I know this is a stupid thing to ask, trying to shoehorn logic into it, but don't Trusk realise that they're adding hugely to the unemployment figures here, while also removing the possibility of these places being filled, therefore less jobs + more unemployment = bigger social security bill? No?
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNTk1NDg4MDEtMzE4Yy00Y2M1LWE2NTAtNGU4NGQ3NjI0MDU3XkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg)
They don't care about that or the average middle class worker.
It's all about what will benefit the upper class.
If Elon really cared about finding fraud and misuing funds he would head straight to the military budget but of course he won't because he wants to get himself more defense contracts.
Neighbour for 12 years and glad he's lost his job.
Cunt.
What's that from? I'm sure I recognise the guy on the left.
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 23, 2025, 08:29 PMWhat's that from? I'm sure I recognise the guy on the left.
Office Space. A classic.
(https://cdn.uconnectlabs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/05/2014officespace4.gif)
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 23, 2025, 08:29 PMWhat's that from? I'm sure I recognise the guy on the left.
He also starred in Scrubs maybe that's where you remember him from.
Yes! That's it. The Doctor they were all sort of afraid of, half-psycho, half-surgeon. Dr. Cox? Knew I'd seen him somewhere. Thanks DJ!
Ah yes, and he's also Stan in Stan Against Evil. Classic.
Mutiny in the leper colony...
WaPo:
QuoteSeveral administration officials tell federal workers not to respond to Musk email demanding accounting of their work
Top officials at the Defense Department, Homeland Security and HHS were among those who told employees that they don't need to immediately comply with the request to more than 2 million workers over the weekend. Other agencies offered different guidance.
Elon must be an awkward dance partner for Donald with those two left feet...
(https://i.postimg.cc/PxnXPqZ8/TKEF.png)
Hackers play AI video of Trump kissing Elon Musk's feet on cafeteria screens at HUD headquarters: 'LONG LIVE THE REAL KING' (https://nypost.com/2025/02/24/us-news/hackers-play-video-of-trump-kissing-elon-musks-feet-on-cafeteria-screens-at-hud-headquarters-long-live-the-real-king/?utm_campaign=nypost&utm_medium=referral)
Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 24, 2025, 08:58 PMElon must be an awkward dance partner for Donald with those two left feet...
(https://i.postimg.cc/PxnXPqZ8/TKEF.png)
Hackers play AI video of Trump kissing Elon Musk's feet on cafeteria screens at HUD headquarters: 'LONG LIVE THE REAL KING' (https://nypost.com/2025/02/24/us-news/hackers-play-video-of-trump-kissing-elon-musks-feet-on-cafeteria-screens-at-hud-headquarters-long-live-the-real-king/?utm_campaign=nypost&utm_medium=referral)
😂😂😂 I saw his and lol'd.
Lucky Donald.
I'm joking ffs.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Feb 24, 2025, 10:23 PM😂😂😂 I saw his and lol'd.
Lucky Donald.
I'm joking ffs.
Elon/DOGE must've fired the HUD IT/Cybersecurity guy. :laughing:
Apparently there's been a bunch of purges across the CIA, FBI, and pentagon including some of the top brass. I have no love for those ghouls, but maybe unceremoniously shitcanning a pile of people whose entire expertise is toppling nations and crippling political movements and replacing them with a bunch of unqualified and incompetent morons you found on Fox News is, I unno, maybe a bit risky lol
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Feb 25, 2025, 01:17 AMApparently there's been a bunch of purges across the CIA, FBI, and pentagon including some of the top brass. I have no love for those ghouls, but maybe unceremoniously shitcanning a pile of people whose entire expertise is toppling nations and crippling political movements and replacing them with a bunch of unqualified and incompetent morons you found on Fox News is, I unno, maybe a bit risky lol
Who has been added to the FBI may turn out to be more important than who was removed. The deputy director is the person who runs the day to day operation of 38,000 agents. Hard right podcaster with no relevant experience Dan Bongino has just been appointed to the position. Usually the Director chooses his deputy, but there's reason for speculation that this may have been a Trump appointment.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mk6YrD6J/DTSM.png)
Trump posts SpongeBob meme to poke fun at outrage over Elon Musk's email asking federal workers what they did last week (https://nypost.com/2025/02/24/us-news/trump-posts-spongebob-meme-to-poke-fun-at-outrage-over-elon-musks-email-asking-federal-workers-what-they-did-last-week/)
Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 25, 2025, 02:22 PM(https://i.postimg.cc/mk6YrD6J/DTSM.png)
Trump posts SpongeBob meme to poke fun at outrage over Elon Musk's email asking federal workers what they did last week (https://nypost.com/2025/02/24/us-news/trump-posts-spongebob-meme-to-poke-fun-at-outrage-over-elon-musks-email-asking-federal-workers-what-they-did-last-week/)
😂😂😂
What I want to know is where is the political pushback here? Surely the Dems are not so spineless that they're keeping silent while the country implodes around them? They are, after all, (supposed to be) the Opposition, and it's basically their job to speak up when the government (using the term in its most generous, broadest sense) is doing the wrong thing. Are they really afraid to make themselves heard (and maybe targets)? Are they going to wait till there's some sort of popular uprising and THEN join in, like Italy near the tail-end of WWII, when it was clear Hitler was losing? I mean, how much more does Trump need to do before they'll speak, or have I missed their comments? They certainly have not been in the news anyway. Is the sound of fury and thunder the only one coming out of congress now?
(https://media.tenor.com/zTsOvKAupkgAAAAM/crickets.gif)
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 25, 2025, 03:20 PMWhat I want to know is where is the political pushback here? Surely the Dems are not so spineless that they're keeping silent while the country implodes around them? They are, after all, (supposed to be) the Opposition, and it's basically their job to speak up when the government (using the term in its most generous, broadest sense) is doing the wrong thing. Are they really afraid to make themselves heard (and maybe targets)? Are they going to wait till there's some sort of popular uprising and THEN join in, like Italy near the tail-end of WWII, when it was clear Hitler was losing? I mean, how much more does Trump need to do before they'll speak, or have I missed their comments? They certainly have not been in the news anyway. Is the sound of fury and thunder the only one coming out of congress now?
(https://media.tenor.com/zTsOvKAupkgAAAAM/crickets.gif)
Democrats: We Have NO PLAN To Fight Trump
My suspicion is that they are speaking out, but aren't getting as much media attention. Partly because, being the opposition party, their words carry less weight than the party in power, and partly because they are hampered by their more restrainted conduct.
Disgusting though it is, if I was a newspaper editor, I know which image I'd want to put on my front page:
(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2025/02/1200/675/waters-schumer-elon.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
(https://fotos.perfil.com/2025/02/21/trim/1140/641/elon-musk-javier-milei-chainsaw-1971347.jpg)
And on the topic of disgusting, that SpongeBob meme from Trump takes some beating. What's the motive, other than sadistic malice? Not only are Trump/Musk inflicting on people the trauma of robbing them of their livelyhood, they are taking gleeful pleasure in the pain they're causing. I myself have been made suddenly redundant on occasions ("The project has been cancelled and today will be your last day here"). At least where I was working, the bosses had the decency not to jeer at me as I left the building.
Quote from: Trollheart on Feb 25, 2025, 03:20 PMWhat I want to know is where is the political pushback here? Surely the Dems are not so spineless that they're keeping silent while the country implodes around them? They are, after all, (supposed to be) the Opposition, and it's basically their job to speak up when the government (using the term in its most generous, broadest sense) is doing the wrong thing. Are they really afraid to make themselves heard (and maybe targets)? Are they going to wait till there's some sort of popular uprising and THEN join in, like Italy near the tail-end of WWII, when it was clear Hitler was losing? I mean, how much more does Trump need to do before they'll speak, or have I missed their comments? They certainly have not been in the news anyway. Is the sound of fury and thunder the only one coming out of congress now?
(https://media.tenor.com/zTsOvKAupkgAAAAM/crickets.gif)
Dems appear to be having a crisis of leadership. They've got some young blood in the party, but the old farts need to learn to take a backseat and pass the baton.
Donors turning off the spigot doesn't help either. (https://fox59.com/news/national-world/angry-democratic-donors-turn-off-the-flow-of-money/)
QuoteDemocrats are anxious to rebuild their party on the heels of President Donald Trump's victory in November. But they have a major problem as they try to refashion their brand: The money isn't there.
Democratic donors — from bundlers to small-dollar donors — say they are still angry about the election results and uninspired by anything their side has put forward since then.
"I'll be blunt here: The Democratic Party is f‑‑‑ing terrible. Plain and simple," one major Democratic donor said. "In fact, it doesn't get much worse."
A second donor was equally as pointed. "They want us to spend money, and for what? For no message, no organization, no forward thinking. ... The thing that's clear to a lot of us is that the party never really learned its lesson in 2016. They worked off the same playbook and the same ineffective strategies and to what end?"
Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 25, 2025, 02:22 PM(https://i.postimg.cc/mk6YrD6J/DTSM.png)
Trump posts SpongeBob meme to poke fun at outrage over Elon Musk's email asking federal workers what they did last week (https://nypost.com/2025/02/24/us-news/trump-posts-spongebob-meme-to-poke-fun-at-outrage-over-elon-musks-email-asking-federal-workers-what-they-did-last-week/)
Says the intern who spent their time making jokeless memes for the professional golfer and occasional paper signer.
People are suffering and losing their jobs because of our administration's very deliberate actions, better make fun of them durr hurr.
We're being ruled by fucking fourth graders.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 25, 2025, 04:08 PMSays the intern who spent their time making jokeless memes for the professional golfer and occasional paper signer.
People are suffering and losing their jobs because of our administration's very deliberate actions, better make fun of them durr hurr.
We're being ruled by fucking fourth graders.
Yep, I agree completely, Lexi. :thumb:
I has also been in my mind to give you credit for regularly warning us, in the run-up to the election about the risk of Project 2025. Although people were doubting your concerns, you have been proved right all along: Project 2025 is now being implemented, and what's the response? Some protest, yes, but far too much silence, acquiesence or (SpongeBob meme) delight.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Feb 25, 2025, 04:35 AMWho has been added to the FBI may turn out to be more important than who was removed. The deputy director is the person who runs the day to day operation of 38,000 agents. Hard right podcaster with no relevant experience Dan Bongino has just been appointed to the position. Usually the Director chooses his deputy, but there's reason for speculation that this may have been a Trump appointment.
My implication was more that the admin shitcanning and pissing off a bunch of people whose vocation is demolishing governments and political movements is maybe making very dangerous enemies to the Trump admin especially since he's filling the government with idiots.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Feb 25, 2025, 04:08 PMSays the intern who spent their time making jokeless memes for the professional golfer and occasional paper signer.
People are suffering and losing their jobs because of our administration's very deliberate actions, better make fun of them durr hurr.
We're being ruled by fucking fourth graders.
Just more red meat to his base who really have no actual principles or interests beyond their grievances and inflicting cruelty. They'll get fucked too, but they don't mind as long as the people they're encouraged to shit on get fucked harder. Nothing makes right-wingers happier than punching down on someone.
The Lee Atwater method.
Bashing the Dems too much makes me a bit uneasy, for reasons that are best explained with a plumbers-for-hire analogy: the Dems were offering their services to fix the plumbing of America and arranged a day (Nov 5, 2024) to be allowed in. If what SGR says about donors abandoning the Dems, this is now the position of people criticising the Dems:
"Those Dem plumbers are useless: I didn't show up at the ballot box/front door to let them in, now I'm not paying them, but it's their fault that they haven't done the job. The plumber I did let in is drowning my house in a deluge of sewage, and those Dem plumbers are not helping."
In modern history Democrats have on average overperformed and overdelivered despite facing a number of disadvantages compared to Republicans.
What Pelosi and Chuck lack in charisma they have more than made up for in political acumen.
Maybe it's time for new leadership but I think the left will quickly find that they're not easy to replace.
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 25, 2025, 05:02 PMBashing the Dems too much makes me a bit uneasy, for reasons that are best explained with a plumbers-for-hire analogy: the Dems were offering their services to fix the plumbing of America and arranged a day (Nov 5, 2024) to be allowed in. If what SGR says about donors abandoning the Dems, this is now the position of people criticising the Dems:
"Those Dem plumbers are useless: I didn't show up at the ballot box/front door to let them in, now I'm not paying them, but it's their fault that they haven't done the job. The plumber I did let in is drowning my house in a deluge of sewage, and those Dem plumbers are not helping."
How do our political analogies always inevitably end up with plumbing and pipes? :laughing: There must be something in the air...
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-15-2015/uN4GIw.gif)
Firstly, the Dem donors would not be upset at all if the Democrats had won. The quotes from them and things they are saying make it sound like they think the Democrats are hopeless/useless/etc. But if they didn't believe the Democrats had a convincing strategy to win, they wouldn't have donated. So in some sense, they're bemoaning the fact that they feel fooled and/or taken for believing they did. Had the Dems won, the donors wouldn't have any problems at all with the 'vision' or 'message' of Democrats and they'd be happy to keep the cash coming and let them do their thing and if their strategy for the midterms/2028 was mostly "do the same thing we did last time", they wouldn't be bothered at all because it would have worked in 2024. In some ironic sense, you could even argue the Dems were trepidatious in 2024 campaigning because they didn't want to upset or spook these same donors. They didn't want to take a different position on Israel/Gaza, they didn't want to talk about universal health care, they wanted everything to be straight-laced and donor-acceptable, and this is where it got them.
Regardless, I think the way you framed the analogy was a bit overly charitable to the Dems. It could be said the the Dems were already in the house and working on the plumbing for four years. The homeowner was not happy with the way things were going and how long it was taking. Then a different plumber showed up (a plumber who the homeowner had already fired years ago), but now that old plumber has a felony conviction - but yet he tells the homeowner that despite that, he'll come in and do the plumbing job better, cheaper, and faster than their current plumber. Instead of focusing on telling the homeowner all the plans they have to fix the plumbing problems and do better if they keep them, they focus on telling the homeowner all the reasons why they shouldn't hire the loudmouth plumber outside their house banging on the door. His tools are outdated, he's incompetent, his previous plumbing jobs resulted in many leaky faucets, he is a felon, etc. The homeowner, at the end of his rope, kicks his current plumber out and gives his old (and now criminally convicted) plumber a second chance.
For better or for worse, James Carville's "It's the economy, stupid" still has a lot of resonance and import. Remember that little sign Truman had on his desk? "The Buck Stops Here"?
(https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/a3b/80b/19e7c9e6eab8c66052800dfcabfe7012da-16-truman.2x.h473.w710.jpg)
That's not exactly the truth, but that's the perception among American voters. They need someone to blame. And Biden/Kamala aren't the first to be on the bad end of that blame. I don't think Herbert Hoover for example caused the great depression, but he certainly suffered the political consequences for it. And many presidents get credit for booming economies when they don't deserve credit for it either, simply because they're presiding over it at the time.
This election wasn't a vast country-wide mandate in the sense that it wasn't close. It was close. Trump won the popular vote by around ~3 million votes. He won the election. In 2016, Hillary won the popular vote by around ~3 million votes, but she lost the election. But in this election, the Dems raised over a billion more than the GOP (https://archive.ph/bVF9X), and by some accounts (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/14/how-did-kamala-harriss-campaign-rack-up-a-debt-after-record-fundraising), they ended up (somehow) in debt afterwards. The Dems did show signs that they realized this was a 'change' election, so they dropped Biden after his cadaverous debate performance, but their replacement for him still said she couldn't think of anything she'd do differently than him:
Such a layup question, and it was just completely missed. Let's be honest, this is politics. She could have at least lied about something she'd do different! At least it would show you cared enough to realize that saying you'd do the same thing wouldn't fly.
Regardless, the Democrats need some tough love, but not from Republicans or conservatives - they need it from their own constituency. If the donors just kept the cash flow going and, since we're talking about spongebob memes, gave them the following treatment after this loss, nothing would change:
(https://i.redd.it/bisioca4ttod1.gif)
If they want to win again, something needs to change, and so the incentives need to change too to catlyze said change. To Weekender's point, the left is not going anywhere. I don't know about the Democratic Party, but the left as a constituency will always be there. If the Democrats don't get their act together, something else will be born in their wake to capture their constituency. To be the 'party of democracy', and then blame/scold the voters, while patting the Democratic Party/DNC on the back and telling them they tried their best when the election doesn't go your way is just a losing strategy. They need the critique, and they need the pain, and they need the dissatisfaction if they are to grow and improve. They need a fire lit under their ass and they need to be more amenable to a bottom-up approach than a top-down approach. Otherwise, they should get used to the idea of losing to Vance (or god knows who) in 2028, after trying the same strategies and approaches as they have the past 10 years and unsurprisingly, failing again.
Quote from: SGR on Feb 26, 2025, 12:14 AMHow do our political analogies always inevitably end up with plumbing and pipes? :laughing: There must be something in the air...
Well, I chose plumbers with you in mind, SGR, and realised as I wrote it that the analogy wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny. For next time, I'm going to up my game, inspired by these "analogies", which, in fact, are almost all similies:-
QuoteRegardless, I think the way you framed the analogy was a bit overly charitable to the Dems. It could be said the the Dems were already in the house and working on the plumbing for four years. The homeowner was not happy with the way things were going and how long it was taking. Then a different plumber showed up (a plumber who the homeowner had already fired years ago), but now that old plumber has a felony conviction - but yet he tells the homeowner that despite that, he'll come in and do the plumbing job better, cheaper, and faster than their current plumber. Instead of focusing on telling the homeowner all the plans they have to fix the plumbing problems and do better if they keep them, they focus on telling the homeowner all the reasons why they shouldn't hire the loudmouth plumber outside their house banging on the door. His tools are outdated, he's incompetent, his previous plumbing jobs resulted in many leaky faucets, he is a felon, etc. The homeowner, at the end of his rope, kicks his current plumber out and gives his old (and now criminally convicted) plumber a second chance.
For better or for worse, James Carville's "It's the economy, stupid" still has a lot of resonance and import.
Yep, that unhappy plumbing story is closer to what happened to the US last year, and as for Carville's quote about the economy, I think it needs a small adjustment, so that it also covers Trump's inability to kerb rocketing egg prices: "It's what people can be tricked into imagining about the economy, stupid."
As you mention, the economy wasn't so bad under the Dems and although you blame the Dems for their position of "carry on as before", I think may still yet be a winning policy if, as I suspect, America starts to hurt under the chaos, corruption and confusion that Trump/Musk and allies are ushering in. Suddenly, going back to the way things were may begin to look more attractive.
Case in point, the fiasco of Musk's "five things you did" email. I imagine that Musk's own reply would go something like this:-
1. Sent email threatening to fire thousands of Federal workers.
2. Posted bogus savings and attributed them to DOGE
3. Rescinded item #1 email threat.
4. Retracted statement of savings in item #2.
5. Still waiting in vain for Trump to clarify my own position re item #1 email. In my mind, I am projecting this chaos going forward in other areas of government: the CDC will be vacillating about which disinfectant you should ingest to prevent measles. NOOA will be waiting on hurricane warnings until Trump tells America where he wants the hurricane to go.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://d1i4t8bqe7zgj6.cloudfront.net/09-04-2019/t_9b46a51260f3450bbe5aaa8435438a58_name_f7ac125e_cf35_11e9_a620_0a91656d7db6_scaled.jpg&w=300)
Too scary to imagine what's going to happen to the FBI, or on the international stage, or with the US economy isolated behind its own tariff walls, and perhaps for that reason the Dem policy is inspired by that other piece of political/military wisdom: never interrupt your enemy when he is making mistakes.
I know that Trump/Hitler comparisons sound a bit overblown, but the way the democratic Germany of the 1930s voted its way to a corrupt fascist power grab has many parallels to recent events in the US. One difference is this,though: although they had a bunch semi-insane ideas, the Nazi's were sufficiently tethered to reality that they placed competent and experienced people into positions of authority. Trump's appointments, in contrast, are barely capable people pulled (largely) from show-biz, so that even if they were well-intentioned (which they decidedly are not) they are way out of their depth.
In short: I see a bad moon rising, and (to go from a great song to a lousy one) the Dems, even when not doing much, are like Friends, "
I'll be there for youoo."
@Lisnaholic on that note...
(https://i.ibb.co/jkHCkHrz/FB-IMG-1740564062609.jpg)
:laughing:
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 26, 2025, 04:32 PMWell, I chose plumbers with you in mind, SGR, and realised as I wrote it that the analogy wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny. For next time, I'm going to up my game, inspired by these "analogies", which, in fact, are almost all similies:-
My goodness, our analogies don't look half bad when you compare them to the ones in that video. :laughing:
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Feb 26, 2025, 04:32 PMYep, that unhappy plumbing story is closer to what happened to the US last year, and as for Carville's quote about the economy, I think it needs a small adjustment, so that it also covers Trump's inability to kerb rocketing egg prices: "It's what people can be tricked into imagining about the economy, stupid."
As you mention, the economy wasn't so bad under the Dems and although you blame the Dems for their position of "carry on as before", I think may still yet be a winning policy if, as I suspect, America starts to hurt under the chaos, corruption and confusion that Trump/Musk and allies are ushering in. Suddenly, going back to the way things were may begin to look more attractive.
You may have misunderstood me just a bit. While I'm saying that I don't think Biden/Kamala/Dems were primarily responsible for the inflation/economy, I don't mean to say that the economy 'wasnt so bad'. It's not like we were in a depression, or even a recession, but people's wallets were hurting, and I think it's no question that this was one of the primary reasons that Trump won (https://hub.jhu.edu/2024/11/20/how-inflation-impacted-2024-election/). He'd hammer Biden/Kamala and the Dems on this every possible chance he'd get, and he'd promise to 'end inflation' (like it was possible to just go in and wave a magic deflation wand, and the Democrats simply didn't know how to cast the spell or something), obviously extremely light on the details of
how he'd fix it - "...and this is all you need to know, they broke it, and I'll fix it."
It's not about what voters 'imagine' about the economy - it's about the perception of the economy in their daily lives, separate from aggregated statistics. Perception may not be reality strictly, but perception largely is political reality, unless you can change that perception.
Democrats messaging on this simply was not good. I don't hold anything against them when it's not campaign season, but once it's time to campaign and earn votes, talking about the CPI, how the inflation rate is actually down from what it was, and how it's actually a global phenomenon (which it was) as a way to basically try to tell voters "Actually, you're wrong about how you feel about the economy and the prices you're paying, and here's why" - voters don't typically want to be told they're wrong and be presented with statistics (that they don't understand) and quotes from economists as to why, they want their fears assuaged and their concerns empathized with. A perfect example would be Bill Clinton during one of his debates with HW Bush - you remember I'm sure - "I feel your pain"? Starting off with a question to the audience member: "Tell me how it's affected you again?" Just masterful. He made HW Bush seem completely out of touch. Bill Clinton's personal life is obviously very controversial, but he was an excellent politician.
To provide a defense for Kamala though - and again, some day I hope we'll read the books and tell-alls that give us all the juicy details so we can completely understand and contextualize all of this - she, unlike Bill Clinton (in that debate) or Trump (this last election) was running as an incumbent VP. So not only was she saddled with providing a vision and plan for the future, but she had the unenviable task of taking stock of and defending the current administration. The question still remains on why she seemed so reticent to ever lay a bit of blame on Biden for cheap political points and to ensure voters a President Kamala would not be the same as a President Biden. She did have opportunities, even in friendly environments, but she simply didn't do it for one reason or another. Some have said that it's because she has a strong loyalty to Biden - but I think it's more likely that she had the shortest time of any presidential nominee to run a winning campaign and she got saddled with Biden's then campaign staff to help her, and she took their advice of what and what not to do and say. I've made no secret that I don't think Kamala is naturally talented as a political speaker or a messenger, but it was the right play to switch Biden out for her. With Biden, the Dems would've been doomed (even though many Dems couldn't see it at the time), with Kamala they had a chance. If the incumbent party losing continues to be a trend, perhaps we'll need to collectively reassess the assumption we have of the 'incumbency advantage'? :laughing:
As I've stressed though, this next go-around, the Dems need to allow a completely open primary and let their voters decide on the nominee (no DNC giving debate questions to their favored candidate, or striking cabinet deals with other nominees to get them to drop out to ruin the progressive candidate before Super Tuesday, etc.). Believe it or not, if you let the voters decide on their nominee, rather than letting party big-wigs choose the nominee in the backrooms like the old days, they're more likely to show up on Election Day to vote for them.
To your thought that perhaps the Dems best play (or at least, an effective play) is to simply 'carry on as before' - or in other words, do nothing (and let Trump's admin make mistakes)/then do the same thing they've done before, maybe it will work, but I wouldn't bet on it (https://san.com/cc/democrats-in-congress-receive-lowest-approval-rating-in-quinnipiac-poll-history/). To me, it seems more like a tacit admission of 'we got nothing, let's just wait and see if the other side falls apart - that Trump/Elon bromance has to end at some point, right?'. It's wishful thinking, poor political strategy, and the complete opposite of proactive; how has it worked out for them in the last 10 years? - but in your defense, it will sell to the Democrat base (because they have no other real alternatives). But it's going to take more to get the independents/unaffiliateds. Keep in mind, Trump probably would have won 2020 if it wasn't for a global pandemic that completely shut countries down. The Democrats, if they're lying in wait for Trump's mistakes, obviously need to effectively pounce when he does make mistakes to rebuild their political capital. Do you think Trump's made mistakes yet? If so, have the Democrats pounced and capitalized?
It's not the president's job to reach down and improve citizen's lives. That's what you ask your specific representatives in Congress to do. Even then, they don't control the economy, at best they regulate it.
Still Biden's economy was pretty good. Maybe it's the high levels of income inequality that's driving everyone insane.
Quote from: Weekender on Feb 27, 2025, 12:35 AMIt's not the president's job to reach down and improve citizen's lives. That's what you ask your specific representatives in Congress to do. Even then, they don't control the economy, at best they regulate it.
Still Biden's economy was pretty good. Maybe it's the high levels of income inequality that's driving everyone insane.
Technically, you might be correct - but the 'bully pulpit' in the Teddy Roosevelt sense, along with the (as the years have gone by) increased power of the executive branch, voters look to their presidential nominees for answers. If you're not touting an improvement to the lives of citizens, good luck running for president.
And per the economy, polls would contradict your assessment (https://news.gallup.com/poll/655859/economic-confidence-ticks-down-partisans-views-shift.aspx). If income inequality was the real economic concern, Dems shouldn't have lost the popular vote (as Kamala, as would be expected, promised to tax the rich). I think financial pressures on voters at the gas station and at the grocery store are more pressing a concern than how much they're making relative to the rich and powerful, at least in this past election.
Quote from: Weekender on Feb 27, 2025, 12:35 AMIt's not the president's job to reach down and improve citizen's lives. That's what you ask your specific representatives in Congress to do. Even then, they don't control the economy, at best they regulate it.
Still Biden's economy was pretty good. Maybe it's the high levels of income inequality that's driving everyone insane.
Biden economy being pretty good is worthless when talking to the everyday worker because they are feeling it hard with common expenses. Whatever is happening they just want something different and to be able to afford stuff. Saying the economy is good while inflation is terrible did no good for the Dems along with Harris saying she wouldn't do anything different from what Biden did. She needed to throw his ass under the bus.
I think it's fairly safe to say that out of all the election strategies the Dems deployed, trying to debate the working class out of the perception that they're being raped by inflation might have been the most ineffectual.
Like SGR said, perception matters more than the actual economy does. People actually only care about their personal finances, not the economy. They just conflate the two. So if the economy is good on paper, but you still end up with less money left over at the end of each month, nobody is actually all thar interested in or impressed by economic metrics that they don't even understand in the first place.
Also, re: the plumbing analogy.... in the case of these politicians, getting elected is the most essential part of their job. You can't think about it as if it's like the job interview or something. Getting elected is the job itself. Especially as far as the donors are concerned. They aren't donating all that money cause they care about the country so much. They're attempting to buy political influence. Which they obviously can't do if you don't get elected. So obviously they're going to be frustrated at sinking their money into a party that runs a dumpsterfire of a campaign like the one we just watched, with their money. Here's the world's smallest violin for all that wasted donor money. So sad.
And they have to be extra salty seeing that Elon has managed to purchase for himself not just political influence but a position so powerful that it's not obvious he's Trump's subordinate.
Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 25, 2025, 02:22 PM(https://i.postimg.cc/mk6YrD6J/DTSM.png)
Trump posts SpongeBob meme to poke fun at outrage over Elon Musk's email asking federal workers what they did last week (https://nypost.com/2025/02/24/us-news/trump-posts-spongebob-meme-to-poke-fun-at-outrage-over-elon-musks-email-asking-federal-workers-what-they-did-last-week/)
Enough of this shit. Elon has a choice to make: either you can be the evil oligarch trying to enslave us all, or you can be an out of touch boomer posting cringe SpongeBob memes. This shit is so embarrassing.
Quote from: Psy-Fi on Feb 25, 2025, 03:54 PM
Democrats: We Have NO PLAN To Fight Trump
I don't really disagree with what they're saying, but how can Cenk and Ana really criticize anyone else's strategy for dealing with MAGA? They have less room than anyone to talk.
Up until the election Cenk was running with "Trump is a fascist" and then as soon as he won Cenk declares victory for "populism" and goes on an apology tour of right wing podcasts and events kissing the ass of MAGA based on the utterly naive idea that he was going to be able to find common cause between the *populist right" and the "populist left" and work together on issues they both supposedly care about. Have you ever heard of a dumber plan from someone who's been doing this shit for like 20 years?
Quote from: SGR on Feb 27, 2025, 01:01 AMTechnically, you might be correct - but the 'bully pulpit' in the Teddy Roosevelt sense, along with the (as the years have gone by) increased power of the executive branch, voters look to their presidential nominees for answers. If you're not touting an improvement to the lives of citizens, good luck running for president.
And per the economy, polls would contradict your assessment (https://news.gallup.com/poll/655859/economic-confidence-ticks-down-partisans-views-shift.aspx). If income inequality was the real economic concern, Dems shouldn't have lost the popular vote (as Kamala, as would be expected, promised to tax the rich). I think financial pressures on voters at the gas station and at the grocery store are more pressing a concern than how much they're making relative to the rich and powerful, at least in this past election.
The electorate doesn't know anything. The data shows that the answer to "Are you better off now than 4 years ago" should be yes, but the people answered no.
The trend globally is towards extremist politics and I suspect it correlates with the exploding levels of income inequality.
Although I think it's also possible that Trump is a phenomenon specific to the US and has more to do with our history of racism than the economy.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Feb 27, 2025, 01:19 AMBiden economy being pretty good is worthless when talking to the everyday worker because they are feeling it hard with common expenses. Whatever is happening they just want something different and to be able to afford stuff. Saying the economy is good while inflation is terrible did no good for the Dems along with Harris saying she wouldn't do anything different from what Biden did. She needed to throw his ass under the bus.
They might "feel" worse but there aren't any economic indicators that say they're actually doing worse. So why do they feel that way? That must be the question lots of Democrats are asking themselves right now.
Status quo liberal politics is on the ropes worldwide. It's certainly not just the US.
Also, I think the inflation is more the issue than anything weekday. People didn't have a negative perception about the economy in early 2020. Covid is really when it all shifted.
And it's not getting better. Assuming that doesn't change, eventually it will be associated Trump and hopefully hurt his popularity.
Quote from: Weekender on Feb 27, 2025, 04:41 AMThey might "feel" worse but there aren't any economic indicators that say they're actually doing worse. So why do they feel that way? That must be the question lots of Democrats are asking themselves right now.
But there were economic metrics that could explain why people were doing worse (https://www.barrons.com/articles/trump-harris-economy-inflation-jobs-c1d411b1), and why they felt they were worse off. In the link specifically; (3. Inflation, 7. Interest Rates, 8. Housing Prices, 10. Consumer Sentiment). But it was all largely downstream from inflation. It's not like this was some grand mystery and the Democrats had to crack the Enigma machine to figure this out and respond to it more effectively in their messaging.
Jwb is right though, if the inflation doesn't get better and prices don't come down fast enough, that which served as an asset to the Trump campaign will quickly become a Republican albatross in 2026 and perhaps even 2028. In some ways, it might have been better for Dems if Trump had won in 2020. He'd have been tied to the political consequences for all the economic blowback of COVID, supply chain issues, and stimulus spending. And in that alternate reality, the Dems would've likely had a real primary in 2024 and not nominated Joe Biden. Hindsight as they say is 20/20 though. Who knows.
Quote from: Jwb on Feb 27, 2025, 02:54 AMI don't really disagree with what they're saying, but how can Cenk and Ana really criticize anyone else's strategy for dealing with MAGA? They have less room than anyone to talk.
Up until the election Cenk was running with "Trump is a fascist" and then as soon as he won Cenk declares victory for "populism" and goes on an apology tour of right wing podcasts and events kissing the ass of MAGA based on the utterly naive idea that he was going to be able to find common cause between the *populist right" and the "populist left" and work together on issues they both supposedly care about. Have you ever heard of a dumber plan from someone who's been doing this shit for like 20 years?
I'll occasionally watch a video of theirs but I don't follow them outside of that YouTube channel. Wasn't aware of him sucking up to the opposition after the election.
Can't say that I disagree with anything they said in that video, though.
DHS quietly eliminates ban on surveillance based on sexual orientation and gender identity (https://www.advocate.com/politics/dhs-allows-surveillance-sexual-orientation)
Because every day under this administration is Fuck with LGBT People Day, and every bully's celebrating.
Quote from: Jwb on Feb 27, 2025, 05:09 AMStatus quo liberal politics is on the ropes worldwide. It's certainly not just the US.
This is true, but it does not necessarily follow that Trump is related to trend worldwide.
Quote from: SGR on Feb 27, 2025, 05:47 AMBut there were economic metrics that could explain why people were doing worse (https://www.barrons.com/articles/trump-harris-economy-inflation-jobs-c1d411b1), and why they felt they were worse off. In the link specifically; (3. Inflation, 7. Interest Rates, 8. Housing Prices, 10. Consumer Sentiment). But it was all largely downstream from inflation. It's not like this was some grand mystery and the Democrats had to crack the Enigma machine to figure this out and respond to it more effectively in their messaging.
Jwb is right though, if the inflation doesn't get better and prices don't come down fast enough, that which served as an asset to the Trump campaign will quickly become a Republican albatross in 2026 and perhaps even 2028. In some ways, it might have been better for Dems if Trump had won in 2020. He'd have been tied to the political consequences for all the economic blowback of COVID, supply chain issues, and stimulus spending. And in that alternate reality, the Dems would've likely had a real primary in 2024 and not nominated Joe Biden. Hindsight as they say is 20/20 though. Who knows.
Article is paywalled.
There's no precedent for prices coming down in a healthy economy. What you hope to see is wages rising to meet inflation. And that is exactly what we were seeing towards the end of Biden's 2nd term and even into today.
Ironically all Trump has to do is nothing and he'll look pretty good.
Quote from: Weekender on Feb 27, 2025, 03:38 PMArticle is paywalled.
There's no precedent for prices coming down in a healthy economy. What you hope to see is wages rising to meet inflation. And that is exactly what we were seeing towards the end of Biden's 2nd term and even into today.
Ironically all Trump has to do is nothing and he'll look pretty good.
Fuckin' paywalls. Weird, there was no paywall for me the first time I looked at the article, but it got paywalled on subsequent visits. Here's an archived link (https://archive.ph/xcFM9), but unfortunately, the graphs themselves don't appear to be present in the archived.
To the underlined, there is precedent for prices coming down in a healthy economy. Since eggs are the item du jour these days as a proxy for prices, this chart (https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/consumer-price-index-average-price-data.htm) shows eggs reaching a peak of nearly $3/dozen in Sep/2015, after which they quickly dropped to $2 or less/dozen until Feb of 2022, and they haven't been $2 or less since. You can see other goods/services on the chart too. Some prices remain relatively static, others fluctuate. To your point though yes, you generally want rising wages to deal with price growth/inflation. Mark Perry has an interesting chart (https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-8/) that's made its rounds before:
(https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/cpi2022junea-3.png?x85095)
What you mostly see is that trade-sensitive manufactured goods experienced a price decline over time relative to inflation and wage growth. Remember how ridiculously expensive large CRT TVs used to be? And if you wanted a big-screen plasma in 2004, you'd be shelling out thousands and thousands of dollars. Inflation is simply an average. Prices of individual goods can still come down, even during inflationary periods, depending on market forces.
Regardless, even if inflation continues to cool and we see steady wage growth, if Trump continues long-term to be aggressive/stubborn with his tarrifs, prices for some items will continue to go up.
Zelensky calls US-Ukraine minerals deal a 'framework' as it emerges agreement has no security guarantees (https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/26/europe/ukraine-us-zelensky-trump-rare-earth-security-intl/index.html)
Right. Can anyone seriously see this working? You're so pissed off at Trusk that you will betray your country and go to work for China or Russia?
CNN Exclusive: US intel shows Russia and China are attempting to recruit disgruntled federal employees, sources say
Foreign adversaries including Russia and China have recently directed their intelligence services to ramp up recruiting of US federal employees working in national security, targeting those who have been fired or feel they could be soon, according to four people familiar with recent US intelligence on the issue.
The intelligence indicates that foreign adversaries are eager to exploit the Trump administration's efforts to conduct mass layoffs across the federal workforce – a plan laid out by the Office of Personnel Management earlier this week.
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1895528400997216480
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/6HFUDKwlWcAbC/giphy.gif)
(https://preview.redd.it/trump-and-vance-bully-zelenskyj-in-front-of-the-cameras-v0-chiioo0r5xle1.jpeg?width=3236&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7bef7e106d169a27291e8c064d7d632a7627ade3)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2025/02/28/19/95703113-14448527-image-m-9_1740772564143.jpg)
^ Need a Three Stooges GIF for that one.
Trump and Vance are such monumental pieces of shit.
Yeah good on zelensky for refusing to be bullied into giving them their way
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Feb 28, 2025, 09:45 PMTrump and Vance are such monumental pieces of shit.
This x100.
I believe what we have here is an inflection point.
(https://i.ibb.co/fYHrh7TR/IMG-0360.jpg)
NATO is dead. And I'm hearing from the pundits that Europe really isn't functionally able to come to Ukraine's defense without American support. The weapons systems that were bought from America rely on American tech firms that provide software updates and everything. So European countries need to not only ramp up their defense spending, they can't do so by just buying American weapons. They need to produce their own, and that takes time. So that's not looking very reassuring.
In addition to that, as much as Trump kept saying "you have no cards," the United States is hardly strengthening its strategic position by washing its hands of Europe. He has to project strength, but this is the move of a dying empire. They say they want to shift the emphasis onto China, but Xi is as likely to see this as a sign of America's lack of resolve to really do much of anything to challenge their long term objectives in Taiwan.
Trump said Zelensky was gambling with WW3, but the only thing that has prevented open conflict from emerging between great powers post-WW2 is a sense of the stakes being so high and the deterrence provided by mutually assured destruction.
That didn't only apply to the US directly attacking China or Russia or vice versa, it also deterred actions that were percieved as posing too much of a risk of leading to a direct conflict between great powers. We would fund and arm Ukraine, for example, but we wouldn't send our own military in to fight Russia directly because it was seen as too much of a risk.
The idea was that through funding Ukraine and sanctioning Russia, some level of basic deterrence was maintained without making moves that were too provocative and likely to escalate. I think it's fair to question that assumption now, retrospectively, as it clearly wasn't enough to prevent the conflict that we're currently trying to deal with.
That being said, this move goes even further and basically rewards the invasion. This clearly makes the scenarios that could possibly lead to WW3 much more plausible, not less.
It also makes it more likely that European countries have much less reason to coordinate with the United States in trying to isolate and weaken China. It strengthens china's hand not only strategically but ideologically.
The assumption that a world order where America being the top world hegemon is in Europe's inherent best interest has been shattered. There's also less reason to assume that American power is any more of a stabilizing influence than China is.
Watching that meeting, it was impossible not to get the sense that you're watching history in real time, in the worst way imaginable.
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 01, 2025, 07:26 PMWatching that meeting, it was impossible not to get the sense that you're watching history in real time, in the worst way imaginable.
Great points and I agree for the most part.
It's also worth noting the realpolitik of what NATO really is. At its core, NATO has always been an arm of US foreign policy to advance American interests worldwide using a network of vassal states that are held in a protection racket. That's why the US has around 180 military bases in other countries around the globe, but not the other way around. They aren't charity centers for the locals, they exist as a global apparatus of American military power. Sweden and Finland never wanted to join NATO because they recognized what membership really meant, until Putin went beyond his usual saber rattling and joining NATO came from a sense of urgency. Yes, there's also been a higher minded uniting set of common "western" values that was part of the project which served as the PR front which is where most of the public fondness for the organization comes from, but that's basically gone now. With NATO weakening and the western world turning away from the US to build new alliances, the US will probably also weaken, at least temporarily until the realignment with Russia and attempts at potential US expansion happens, if all of these other countries start telling the US to pack up their military bases and get the fuck out.
From Canada, what we saw in the oval office yesterday is extra ominous because we may be looking down the barrel of our own future in Zelensky. I know most Americans think Trump is just trolling or that his threats of Canadian annexation are just some sort of hard-ball negotiation tactic, but that's definitely not the mood up here. It's more than booing the US anthem at sports games or whatever. Other than a small but noisy subset of Canadian Trump cultists (who may be the dumbest fucking people on earth) who want nothing more than for Daddy Trump to save them from the evil totalitarian tyrant that is... Trudeau and the most generic milquetoast liberal party on the planet (lolwut), something has fundamentally and permanently broke in the US/Canada relationship which has been a historic exercise in how soft power between nations can be used in a positive way. Beneath the annoyingly smug Canadian condescension to the US, there was always a deep sense of familial love. That's fucking gone and flipped upside down. IIRC, the same proportion of Canadians who still view the US as an ally (around 30%) now view the US as an
enemy state with the remaining ~30% unsure of what to make of the US (I'm probably in the unsure crowd... for now). That's nuts, and I've never seen people as pissed off here as they are now. As for US protection of Canada, that's actually where much of the sense of betrayal comes from since we have no adversaries of our own other than the ones we've taken on by being a staunch ally to the US. Should we have invested more into our own defensive aparatus, yes. There's now a growing power grab from many nations for resources in the arctic as climate change melts everything and makes them accessible and this actually has been an area where we
have invested in our own defense. Quietly, but it's been there. Now, our defense investment has to be ramped up to protect ourselves not from Russia or China, but the US. Strange days.
May he burn forever in a hellish pit of shit, but Kissinger was dead right about it being more deadly to be a friend to the US than an enemy.
https://x.com/smubpublius/status/1895626995675120063
Interesting to hear your comments about attitudes in Canada, Auroras. Thanks.
I agree with a lot of Jwb's observations, but I'd really take issue with this statement:-
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 01, 2025, 07:26 PMNATO is dead.
That's a bit of a USA-centric exaggeration, imo. NATO has 32 member countries, and even if the USA were to leave, that still leaves 31 countries committed to a "one for all and all for one" defense strategy, which works as an extremely powerful deterrent to would-be aggressors.
I don't know much about military capabilities worldwide, so I googled this:
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php
They have some weird "Power Index" rating for each country, and of course US and Russia are at the top, but in the global top 20, there are 5 NATO counties (UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain). My conviction: NATO isn't going anywhere, a prediction borne out by this:-
When Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO membership grew, and after the public bullying and victim-shaming displayed by Trump & Vance, there has been an outpouring of Ukraine-supportive statements from NATO and European countries.
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 02, 2025, 01:05 AMInteresting to hear your comments about attitudes in Canada, Auroras. Thanks.
I agree with a lot of Jwb's observations, but I'd really take issue with this statement:-
That's a bit of a USA-centric exaggeration, imo. NATO has 32 member countries, and even if the USA were to leave, that still leaves 31 countries committed to a "one for all and all for one" defense strategy, which works as an extremely powerful deterrent to would-be aggressors.
I don't know much about military capabilities worldwide, so I googled this:
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php
They have some weird "Power Index" rating for each country, and of course US and Russia are at the top, but in the global top 20, there are 5 NATO counties (UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain). My conviction: NATO isn't going anywhere, a prediction borne out by this:-
When Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO membership grew, and after the public bullying and victim-shaming displayed by Trump & Vance, there has been an outpouring of Ukraine-supportive statements from NATO and European countries.
I hope you're right about NATO. The General Secretary of NATO, former Dutch PM Mark Rutte, said on Friday that Zelensky needed to repair his relations with Trump. I found that discouraging, as if to blame Zelensky. I believe on Sunday the "Summit" in the UK will discuss taking Russia's $300B in frozen assets and using it to support Ukraine. The sooner the better.
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Mar 01, 2025, 08:27 PMGreat points and I agree for the most part.
It's also worth noting the realpolitik of what NATO really is. At its core, NATO has always been an arm of US foreign policy to advance American interests worldwide using a network of vassal states that are held in a protection racket. That's why the US has around 180 military bases in other countries around the globe, but not the other way around. They aren't charity centers for the locals, they exist as a global apparatus of American military power. Sweden and Finland never wanted to join NATO because they recognized what membership really meant, until Putin went beyond his usual saber rattling and joining NATO came from a sense of urgency. Yes, there's also been a higher minded uniting set of common "western" values that was part of the project which served as the PR front which is where most of the public fondness for the organization comes from, but that's basically gone now. With NATO weakening and the western world turning away from the US to build new alliances, the US will probably also weaken, at least temporarily until the realignment with Russia and attempts at potential US expansion happens, if all of these other countries start telling the US to pack up their military bases and get the fuck out.
From Canada, what we saw in the oval office yesterday is extra ominous because we may be looking down the barrel of our own future in Zelensky. I know most Americans think Trump is just trolling or that his threats of Canadian annexation are just some sort of hard-ball negotiation tactic, but that's definitely not the mood up here. It's more than booing the US anthem at sports games or whatever. Other than a small but noisy subset of Canadian Trump cultists (who may be the dumbest fucking people on earth) who want nothing more than for Daddy Trump to save them from the evil totalitarian tyrant that is... Trudeau and the most generic milquetoast liberal party on the planet (lolwut), something has fundamentally and permanently broke in the US/Canada relationship which has been a historic exercise in how soft power between nations can be used in a positive way. Beneath the annoyingly smug Canadian condescension to the US, there was always a deep sense of familial love. That's fucking gone and flipped upside down. IIRC, the same proportion of Canadians who still view the US as an ally (around 30%) now view the US as an enemy state with the remaining ~30% unsure of what to make of the US (I'm probably in the unsure crowd... for now). That's nuts, and I've never seen people as pissed off here as they are now. As for US protection of Canada, that's actually where much of the sense of betrayal comes from since we have no adversaries of our own other than the ones we've taken on by being a staunch ally to the US. Should we have invested more into our own defensive aparatus, yes. There's now a growing power grab from many nations for resources in the arctic as climate change melts everything and makes them accessible and this actually has been an area where we have invested in our own defense. Quietly, but it's been there. Now, our defense investment has to be ramped up to protect ourselves not from Russia or China, but the US. Strange days.
May he burn forever in a hellish pit of shit, but Kissinger was dead right about it being more deadly to be a friend to the US than an enemy.
Good post!
I think you're a little wide of the mark with the US and NATO. The EU countries that joined did so voluntarily because they perceived it in their national interest. No one forced them to. As for US expansion, Trump aside, I don't see that happening, and even under Trump I think it unlikely. 20 or more years ago The Philippines kicked the US out of Subic Bay. Ten years later, after they had seen Chinese expansion, they invited the US back. If the great power theory holds it's the people of Latam and Canada who should be fearful. I get the unease up north.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Mar 02, 2025, 01:28 AMI hope you're right about NATO. The General Secretary of NATO, former Dutch PM Mark Rutte, said on Friday that Zelensky needed to repair his relations with Trump. I found that discouraging, as if to blame Zelensky. I believe on Sunday the "Summit" in the UK will discuss taking Russia's $300B in frozen assets and using it to support Ukraine. The sooner the better.
Yeah, hopefully that remark from Mark Rutte is just to promote the best way forward, with the US, Ukraine and NATO "marching, more or less in line."
I suspect US involvement will be reducing a lot under Trump. Maybe it's lack of imagination on my part, but I doubt that the US will pull out of NATO entirely, and even less will NATO countries tell America to "pack up their bases and gtfo".
Also not gonna happen, imo, is any action about the US acquiring Canada or Greenland. Here's a map of NATO showing that even Trump has 31 reasons to leave those countries alone:-
(https://www.diploweb.com/IMG/jpg/2024-nato-32-ab-pictoris-lambert-diploweb-1200-2.jpg)
Any talk of Canada becoming the 51st state is just BS from a senile old blowhard.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Mar 02, 2025, 01:51 AMGood post!
I think you're a little wide of the mark with the US and NATO. The EU countries that joined did so voluntarily because they perceived it in their national interest. No one forced them to.
I wouldn't disagree with that, but I also didn't say they were forced nor does it negate the point that NATO functions like a protection racket that primarily advanced US interests. Both can be true. In Trump's first term, he made a big stink to shake down member countries if they weren't paying up the 2% GDP thing (https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/trump-nato-financial-payments/index.html). Obama did similar things, just far less brashly and not in public. No other country in NATO does this because everyone knows who is
really steering that ship lol. Aligned interests between NATO and member countries is a given, but it's still sort of signing a deal with the devil. I was living in Sweden for around a decade up to 2023 when it was more or less decided to join NATO. I know the reasoning there well. The hesitancy up to that point was first and foremost that the country had avoided direct conflict and war for nearly 200 years (if you overlook a few things lol) and saw no need to change what they were doing until Putin started going haywire, but another factor was not wanting to end up in the pocket of the US. I supported Sweden joining NATO too because the threat from Russia was clear, but I also have no illusions about what the tradeoff would be.
It may still be a controversial take, but when we think of "the west" what we're really talking about in contemporary terms is post-WW2 American hegemony and most of the transnational institutions that western nations have used to maintain the global order only really function and exist with the US at the helm because there's no other enforcement mechanism of global order beyond American power. Look at how irrelevant the ICJ became once the US decided to ignore its warrants. Netanyahu will never see the inside of the cell, and I doubt Putin's warrant will ever be honoured either because Trump will probably ever allow that. How often is otherwise universal consensus at the UN undermined by US vetoes and contrary votes? Pretty often. The point being that these global institutions function only if they align with American interests. The second Washington decides not to play ball, they are mostly paralyzed. On the other hand, if the US leaves these institutions it also weakens itself because it no longer has a pile of other nations dancing to their tune. The US as a superpower hasn't just relied on hard power military force, but it's also come from a lot of soft power woven into foreign policy by creating global institutions that advance its interests. It's becoming clear that this soft power is no longer valued by the US power structure and is regressing towards belligerent hard power. As for US expansion, maybe not under Trump (though I think it's foolish to discount the possibility based on...??) but judging from how policies have been handed down admin to admin, the Dems will probably adopt the same positions in a few years lol. Kamala running on making the US military
more lethal was an eyebrow raiser...
I'm way off on a tangent now lol, but China specializes in soft power which is why they've been doing nothing but sitting back and watching this all unfold. As allies peel away from the US, I predict China will be swooping in to make deals and pull them into their fold. Already happening here (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-donald-trump-canada-china-economic-ties/). Hopefully the EU can mobilize a formidable power structure as an alternative, or maybe the global south which we've all been standing on the backs of will rise up. Who knows. Crazy stuff going on, and I think people should be cautious about being lulled into thinking things will go on as they have. Borders never seem to stay put, and it seems unwise to think they will now just because we're so used to things as they've been. Hope I'm wrong.
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 02, 2025, 02:11 AMAlso not gonna happen, imo, is any action about the US acquiring Canada or Greenland. Here's a map of NATO showing that even Trump has 31 reasons to leave those countries alone:-
Any talk of Canada becoming the 51st state is just BS from a senile old blowhard.
NATO will not rise up against the US. You may be able to dismiss this all, but those of us being threatened don't have that luxury and our own leaders are taking things very
very seriously. In Canada, this threat is not being approached through appealing to NATO for help with security, we're beginning to approach the EU.
Edit: Should also note that, according to Trudeau caught on hot mic, the plan to annex Canada is very real and will be through economic coercion rather than militarily. That said, if that's attempted it will get violent because Canadians will resist.
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Mar 02, 2025, 03:18 AMCrazy stuff going on, and I think people should be cautious about being lulled into thinking things will go on as they have. Borders never seem to stay put, and it seems unwise to think they will now just because we're so used to things as they've been. Hope I'm wrong.
^ Well, you've totally nailed my attitude, Auroras :laughing:
I agree with the points you've made in your two posts, especially the bit about the US applying "economic coercion" rather than military intervention with regard to Canada. So I should revise backwards my dismissal of Trump's threats: if you and Trudeau take them seriously, I'm sure you two are in a way better position to judge than I am.
Quote...nor does it negate the point that NATO functions like a protection racket that primarily advanced US interests. Both can be true. In Trump's first term, he made a big stink to shake down member countries if they weren't paying up the 2% GDP thing (https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/trump-nato-financial-payments/index.html). Obama did similar things, just far less brashly and not in public. No other country in NATO does this because everyone knows who is really steering that ship lol.
I'd disagree with the bold,though. NATO is a group of allies, and it seems fair enough to me that the ally paying the most should badger anyone not pulling their weight. That's a dynamic that, to my mind, isn't so far removed from friends in a pub saying, "Isn't it your turn to buy the drinks?"
Surely a protection racket is something very different ? That's when someone uninvited contributes nothing, but just extorts money with the threat of violence. Does the US contribute nothing to NATO? Does it demand that a percentage of NATO funds be paid direct to the USA? Does it threaten to carry out acts of terrorism against NATO countries if they don't pay? The answers to those three questions would have to be "Yes" for me to accept the idea that "NATO functions like a protection racket".
@Auroras In Ice @Lisnaholic I don't disagree with Ori's assertion that NATO has largely been a tool of American foreign policy. It's been the standard view , especially on the left, that as you said all the talk about spreading democracy and western liberal values was just propaganda that was used to prop up American hegemony. That view was especially common during the Bush years when it was associated with the war in Iraq. But there are a couple things to say about that.
Whether the motive behind NATO was to promote democracy and western values, it was defacto the foundation of the security arrangement that undergirded the so called "free world." I use the quotes because I realize that even that concept of a free world is also a propaganda term that's basically a relic of the cold war.
All the same, the so called free world is indeed more free and more democratic and also much more prosperous than Russia or the Soviet Union. So whether it was designed to promote democracy or not, it was certainly designed to protect Europe. Or more specifically, to contain the USSR/Russia and keep them weak. And that was in America's interests as well as the interests of it's allies in Europe.
That's how a powerful alliance is really supposed to work. Like you said, it's not a charity. You want it to be based on shared interests and pragmatic security concerns, that's what makes it more likely to be a stable and sustainable, and to outlast any potential change in the leadership of the member states. That was true of NATO up until now. There's been times when our interests did diverge, such as during the war in Iraq. But that doesn't undermine the basic premise of the alliance, in the same way that having diverging interests and views concerning Russia does.
What did seem to undermine that premise somewhat was the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war. Like you said, it doesn't seem like there was the same sense of urgency in Europe about non NATO countries joining NATO until Russia invaded Ukraine.
I would say that was simply a brutal reminder of why NATO existed in the first place, which was easy to lose sight of when the regime it was designed to contain collapsed and then post 9-11 America's attention turned to the middle east and the war on terror, it's not particularly surprising that people wouldn't feel so enthusiastic about it in Europe at that point.
I'd be interested to hear what tore or other Europeans or Brits think about the European attitude towards NATO over the years, cause it's not like I have much direct reference to that memory. I was more aware of the American conversation, but even in America there were critics of US empire on the left who regarded NATO basically as a counterproductive relic of the cold war that had lost its original mandate when the Soviet Union collapsed, yet persisted anyway because the true purpose was to pursue and protect the strategic interests of the United States.
But Russia itself shattered the illusion that it is less belligerent than the Soviet Union was, and as such it provided the strongest possible counter argument to the idea that NATO had become obsolete.
Now, with the 2nd Trump admin, it's not so much obsolete as it is in shambles. And yeah Lisna I honestly stand by what I said. It's an American centric view because as Ori pointed out, NATO has always been a US centric alliance. Not that whatever new arrangement that emerges between Europe and Canada couldn't still call itself NATO. But it certainly wouldn't be the same alliance that it has been historically.
Especially since without the US on side, you not only lose military cornerstone of the alliance, you then potentially have to treat the most powerful country in the world as a potential hostile threat that you have to manage. That's a twighlight zone version of NATO if I ever heard of one.
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 02, 2025, 02:56 PMI agree with the points you've made in your two posts, especially the bit about the US applying "economic coercion" rather than military intervention with regard to Canada. So I should revise backwards my dismissal of Trump's threats: if you and Trudeau take them seriously, I'm sure you two are in a way better position to judge than I am.
It's not "me and Trudeau", it's the entire country hence why we've had an absolutely massive and rapid political inversion since Trump took office again and plenty of international recognition of the threat with a lot of interaction with allies to figure out ways to shore up defense against US threats. We have a big election coming up, and this is the top issue across the entire political spectrum from left to right. Our next PM will likely be chosen on the basis of who will be most aggressively defiant and even hostile to the leader of our closest ally. That's fucked up. Even if this amounts to little in terms of Trump's intended outcome, the very threat of annexation from a US president is not a trivial thing and is a significantly coercive tactic against a fiercely loyal ally. Not to mention, Canada/US relations are
already permanently damaged from this. When you handwave away the 51st state thing which you may very well turn out to be right on, you are trivializing a huge amount of damage that has already been done to this relationship.
Just to be clear for the Americans here, Canadians still love the American
people (myself included) and I don't think that will change any time soon. The conflicts here are above
our heads.
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 02, 2025, 02:56 PMI'd disagree with the bold,though. NATO is a group of allies, and it seems fair enough to me that the ally paying the most should badger anyone not pulling their weight. That's a dynamic that, to my mind, isn't so far removed from friends in a pub saying, "Isn't it your turn to buy the drinks?"
Surely a protection racket is something very different ? That's when someone uninvited contributes nothing, but just extorts money with the threat of violence. Does the US contribute nothing to NATO? Does it demand that a percentage of NATO funds be paid direct to the USA? Does it threaten to carry out acts of terrorism against NATO countries if they don't pay? The answers to those three questions would have to be "Yes" for me to accept the idea that "NATO functions like a protection racket".
I don't know about your conception of protection racket, and to be blunt I'm not particularly interested in pedantically dissecting that phrase very much. When the mafia runs a protection racket they offer a client, like some store operating in their territory, protection from
other actors like another gang that will harm the store. As long as that store does what the mafia tells them to do and pays up, the mafia protects them from the other gang. If they don't comply with whatever the mafia tells it to do or pay up, that protection is withheld leaving the store vulnerable. That's a protection racket.
NATO was founded as an alliance to counter Soviet imperialism and expansion to protect vulnerable regional states, primarily using American force. Superpower and all. Even with the Soviet Union gone, the nuclear threat from Russia remains, Putin wants to expand, and US might is still the primary and perhaps only viable deterrent against Russian aggression to surrounding nations. Without US power, NATO is dickless. NATO's mission has expanded beyond containing Russian aggression alone, but it is the genesis of the alliance. Common values and aligned interests among members, yes that's also part of it, but this is also a mechanism of how the US has held onto its hegemony and maintained the global order.
Tying back to the broader point, NATO is mostly clawless without US power backing it. Even if all member states ramped up their contributions massively, they would not collectively match the deterrent force of the US nuclear arsenal alone. America is
the big swinging dick here, whether we like it or not. Period. How that power is used within the NATO framework depends heavily on the character of US leadership, which has become increasingly erratic and unstable. The threat of US withdrawing protection from member states (or leaving NATO entirely) leaving them vulnerable to other external threats, like Russia, is how it functions like a protection racket and treating it as such is
exactly how Trump has always approached the alliance (https://www.thenation.com/article/world/trump-end-nato-mafia/). The thing is, Trump is only saying the quiet part out loud and being ridiculously heavy handed in how he approaches it. That part is an aberration (or a Twilight Zone version as
@Jwb rightly said), but at a deeper fundamental level Trump's not actually wrong about how the power dynamic of NATO works in reality. I don't like it. I'd rather it not be the case, but it is. Maybe most importantly, if it
hasn't been how things worked... then it is now.
@Jwb - I've been puttering away at this reply since well before you posted last, but I think we're mostly aligned in our perspectives on this.
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Mar 02, 2025, 03:18 AMI wouldn't disagree with that, but I also didn't say they were forced nor does it negate the point that NATO functions like a protection racket that primarily advanced US interests. Both can be true. In Trump's first term, he made a big stink to shake down member countries if they weren't paying up the 2% GDP thing (https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/trump-nato-financial-payments/index.html). Obama did similar things, just far less brashly and not in public. No other country in NATO does this because everyone knows who is really steering that ship lol. Aligned interests between NATO and member countries is a given, but it's still sort of signing a deal with the devil.
There's nothing unreasonable about a US Prez, or anyone else asking countries to meet the obligations they committed to.
NATO adopted the 2% threshold in 2014 after the invasion of Crimea. In 2023 only 10 of 31 had reached it. It's expected in 2024 that 23 will have hit it. And now it's going to have to be raised further.
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 02, 2025, 04:44 PM@Auroras In Ice @Lisnaholic
I'd be interested to hear what tore or other Europeans or Brits think about the European attitude towards NATO over the years, cause it's not like I have much direct reference to that memory. I was more aware of the American conversation, but even in America there were critics of US empire on the left who regarded NATO basically as a counterproductive relic of the cold war that had lost its original mandate when the Soviet Union collapsed, yet persisted anyway because the true purpose was to pursue and protect the strategic interests of the United States.
But Russia itself shattered the illusion that it is less belligerent than the Soviet Union was, and as such it provided the strongest possible counter argument to the idea that NATO had become obsolete.
Now, with the 2nd Trump admin, it's not so much obsolete as it is in shambles. And yeah Lisna I honestly stand by what I said. It's an American centric view because as Ori pointed out, NATO has always been a US centric alliance. Not that whatever new arrangement that emerges between Europe and Canada couldn't still call itself NATO. But it certainly wouldn't be the same alliance that it has been historically.
Especially since without the US on side, you not only lose military cornerstone of the alliance, you then potentially have to treat the most powerful country in the world as a potential hostile threat that you have to manage. That's a twighlight zone version of NATO if I ever heard of one.
I've lived my first 30+ years in Europe, and 2nd 30+ in the US. EU has a schizophrenic attitude toward the US.
For as long as I can remember the EU activist left has had a condescending attitude toward the US, focusing only on perceived grievances, and ignoring benefits, while also opposing military spending by their own governments. The left is a much stronger political force in EU than in the US, consequently governments of all stripes have to pay attention.
OTOH, every time the US suggested reducing its presence in EU, the political class usually raised their voice in protest. What about the revenue we'll lose?
If Trump scares the EU into spending money, he'll have done a good day's work. EU has been living in an unsustainable dreamland for too long. Angela Merkel was fond of pointing out that EU has 5% of global population, 25% of global GDP, and 50% of global social spending. Add to that shorter work weeks, and less productivity per hour worked and you have a disaster in the making.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Mar 02, 2025, 08:52 PMThere's nothing unreasonable about a US Prez, or anyone else asking countries to meet the obligations they committed to.
NATO adopted the 2% threshold in 2014 after the invasion of Crimea. In 2023 only 10 of 31 had reached it. It's expected in 2024 that 23 will have hit it. And now it's going to have to be raised further.
I'm probably in the minority of leftist opinion that NATO was a necessary evil and that we should have dedicated more to defense (offset the spending by cutting corporate subsidies, taxing the shit out of billionaires, and investing that back in social programs, etc. etc. etc.), though the way in which the Trump admin is behaving from a Canadian POV makes me question the point of being in NATO when the main player of the alliance is pivoting to become an existential threat. When you take the necessary part out of "necessary evil" what do you have left? Again, we have very very few of our own adversaries other than ones we've adopted from backing the US, so what's left to gain from it? Things for the EU are obviously more complex.
Anyhow, looking pretty grim for NATO. Why Musk is sticking his pecker into this issue is beyond me, but I guess he just runs everything now lol. Wish he would fucking di.... spend more time taking care of his kids.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/nato-final-days-trump-ukraine/
Taking a step back, it's kinda neat how conservatives and leftists actually have a very similar understanding of how NATO operates in terms of realpolitik it's just that one group says "ew gross" and the other says "hell yeah" :laughing: Breaking through the idealistic liberal view of NATO is the tricky part.
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Mar 02, 2025, 06:17 PMIt's not "me and Trudeau", it's the entire country hence why we've had an absolutely massive and rapid political inversion since Trump took office again and plenty of international recognition of the threat with a lot of interaction with allies to figure out ways to shore up defense against US threats. We have a big election coming up, and this is the top issue across the entire political spectrum from left to right. Our next PM will likely be chosen on the basis of who will be most aggressively defiant and even hostile to the leader of our closest ally. That's fucked up. Even if this amounts to little in terms of Trump's intended outcome, the very threat of annexation from a US president is not a trivial thing and is a significantly coercive tactic against a fiercely loyal ally. Not to mention, Canada/US relations are already permanently damaged from this. When you handwave away the 51st state thing which you may very well turn out to be right on, you are trivializing a huge amount of damage that has already been done to this relationship.
I wouldn't read too much into my light-hearted phrase "you and Trudeau". I mentioned you both simply because you were both there on the forum page in front of me.
I am aware that even just talk of "51st state", and 25% tariffs, has had an immediate negative effect on the Canadian economy, and has -quite rightly- been making Canadians furious. I didn't mean to trivialize any of that when I said that the literal 51st state thing was not going to happen.
With regard to the protection racket analogy and NATO, I would point out that my understanding is a protection racket basically just intimidates businesses into extortion money through direct threats and violence.
In other words you pay them, or they personally come assault you and/or bust up your shop. It's not just giving them the option to pay for protection from other gangs. That wouldn't even be extortion in my eyes. That's just hiring private security.
I say this not to be pedantic but because I think that distinction is crucial. What's more, the pressure the US applies to other NATO members regarding defense is for them to beef up their defense spending. So it's not like they're saying to be part of NATO you have to pay the US a certain % of their GDP. Rather they have to invest that into their own defense. There's really no extortion there in my eyes.
Now, of course in reality a lot of that money in fact ends up going to the US based arms industry, because when European countries up their defense spending, they often do so by purchasing American weapons. And often they buy American weapons not even because the weapons themselves are necessary for their defense, but in exchange for security guarantees from the US.
So it's not like there's not also financial motivations for the US to favor this set up. But intuitively I also tend to think that dynamic was also useful for some European countries who would rather just outsource their defense to the US which then frees them up to focus on domestic affairs. I think they simply followed the path of least resistance. But theoretically they were capable of doing otherwise.
That being said, what does look a lot more like classical extortion is Trump trying to strong arm Ukraine into some minerals deal, using their dependence on our military aid and support to basically make them an offer they can't refuse. Trump knows they really have no cards, as he kept repeating, which is why they have to entertain his naked attempts at extortion and continue to try to work with him.
Nations act in their own self-interest, but American dominance is in Europe's interest as long as it maintains their trade advantage over the developing world.
Quote from: Weekender on Mar 03, 2025, 08:46 PMNations act in their own self-interest, but American dominance is in Europe's interest as long as it maintains their trade advantage over the developing world.
I wouldn't dispute that US dominance is in Europe's interest, but the current difficulties have nought to do with the developing world, and because of Trump and only Trump, Europe is now having to face the reality that they may not be able to rely on the US.
As far as protection rackets go, I agree with
@Jwb : my experience of that (from TV and movies) is someone opens a store, or a gang move into the area. Said gang visit said store owner. "Nice place ya got here. Oops!" Something valuable is broken. The implication is made that should said owner not pay them, these people or their associates will come back and make sure more stuff is broken, possibly also bones. My understanding is that they pay for protection from the people who are asking it, a circular argument really: you pay us so we don't have to hurt you. We don't have to hurt you, and you don't need to pay us, but if you don't pay us then we will hurt you. Who's gonna stop us? We will, provided you pay. Otherwise, who knows what we might do? We both know, and that's why you'll pay.
(https://i.imgflip.com/5qa9l8.jpg)
Sure, I'm just responding to the idea that NATO is a racket. Western Europe has an interest in maintaining the current world order as it is. It is true that if the US doesn't fulfill their duty as the enforcer, it presents a problem for Europe.
Also the notion that the EU is somehow getting one over on the US is shortsighted. The US enjoys strategic privileges in exchange for fronting the costs.
This agreement is understood by basically everyone in any position of power, well... everyone except Trump I guess.
I do get the distinction, and it's fair enough, but it's also a distinction without a difference in terms of the intent and outcome of the racket. You pay up/comply with the demands, or you get harmed. Whether the harm comes directly from blowing your brains out or indirectly by unlocking a door open for the killer to walk in and blow your brains out instead, the intent and outcome are the same from the party offering the "protection". You do as they wish or you get hurt. More than one way to crack that egg.
This analogy as applied to NATO is also not uncommon or new, particularly as directed to Trump's approach to NATO since his first term. He's pushed things via direct means tying NATO payments to his threats of US tariffs to NATO members (https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/01/23/trump-at-davos-nato-5-push-tariff-warnings-for-europe) and also indirectly through basically saying "be a shame if we just let Putin have his way with you broke fucks" (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/trump-rally-nato/677426/). Criticizing Trump for treating NATO as a protection racket was also a common line of attack from Biden (other world leaders, too) and Michael McFaul (https://michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/trump-does-not-understand-or-value). If the means Trump is using to enforce NATO payment doesn't meet your standard of coercion and seems appropriate, cool let's discuss that. If using this analogy is going to bog down discussion, I'll use other terms moving on.
That said, my overall point is that the underlying power dynamic of how Trump thinks of NATO, using whatever terms you want to describe it, is actually an accurate reflection of how the alliance has always functioned in reality. He's being a nut about it, but not wrong. Like a caricature that, though exaggerated, highlights real features of the alliance that aren't savoury even with aligned interests and values among member nations. Even if I'm wrong on my position that this is always how NATO worked, Trump is driving NATO to function like this now. Very notable that leaders from NATO member states across the EU and Canada all met yesterday to discuss security (primarily about Ukraine), without any US representation present. So, even as the US seems to be wavering on staying in NATO, it seems like there's new security alliances forming to deal with Russian aggression sans American input.
WaPo...
QuoteTrump administration to pause all deliveries of U.S. military aid to Ukraine, officials say
In the wake of President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's disastrous Oval Office meeting on Friday, the U.S. president is halting the provision of weapons and military assistance critical to Ukraine's fight against Russia.
(https://media.tenor.com/dXR4gB5kMFwAAAAM/screw-you-guys-im-going-home-eric-cartman.gif)
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Mar 04, 2025, 01:29 AMI do get the distinction, and it's fair enough, but it's also a distinction without a difference in terms of the intent and outcome of the racket. You pay up/comply with the demands, or you get harmed. Whether the harm comes directly from blowing your brains out or indirectly by unlocking a door open for the killer to walk in and blow your brains out instead, the intent and outcome are the same from the party offering the "protection". You do as they wish or you get hurt. More than one way to crack that egg.
This analogy as applied to NATO is also not uncommon or new, particularly as directed to Trump's approach to NATO since his first term. He's pushed things via direct means tying NATO payments to his threats of US tariffs to NATO members (https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/01/23/trump-at-davos-nato-5-push-tariff-warnings-for-europe) and also indirectly through basically saying "be a shame if we just let Putin have his way with you broke fucks" (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/trump-rally-nato/677426/). Criticizing Trump for treating NATO as a protection racket was also a common line of attack from Biden (other world leaders, too) and Michael McFaul (https://michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/trump-does-not-understand-or-value). If the means Trump is using to enforce NATO payment doesn't meet your standard of coercion and seems appropriate, cool let's discuss that. If using this analogy is going to bog down discussion, I'll use other terms moving on.
That said, my overall point is that the underlying power dynamic of how Trump thinks of NATO, using whatever terms you want to describe it, is actually an accurate reflection of how the alliance has always functioned in reality. He's being a nut about it, but not wrong. Like a caricature that, though exaggerated, highlights real features of the alliance that aren't savoury even with aligned interests and values among member nations. Even if I'm wrong on my position that this is always how NATO worked, Trump is driving NATO to function like this now. Very notable that leaders from NATO member states across the EU and Canada all met yesterday to discuss security (primarily about Ukraine), without any US representation present. So, even as the US seems to be wavering on staying in NATO, it seems like there's new security alliances forming to deal with Russian aggression sans American input.
I don't think anyone here would disagree that Trump considers NATO a protection racket, he has said so, and you seem to agree with him.
You said upthread that NATO has always been like that, so Trump aside, can you give specific examples of what you mean?
NATO has been around for 75 years and I can't think of a single incident where the US acted as an extortioner towards other members. In all of the various wars that NATO members have been involved in, with or without NATO sanction, from Suez onwards (where Eisenhower hung the UK & France out to dry), they have played an aggressor rather than defender role . De Gaulle's beef with NATO in 66 was an administrative issue.
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Mar 04, 2025, 01:29 AMI do get the distinction, and it's fair enough, but it's also a distinction without a difference in terms of the intent and outcome of the racket. You pay up/comply with the demands, or you get harmed. Whether the harm comes directly from blowing your brains out or indirectly by unlocking a door open for the killer to walk in and blow your brains out instead, the intent and outcome are the same from the party offering the "protection". You do as they wish or you get hurt. More than one way to crack that egg.
This analogy as applied to NATO is also not uncommon or new, particularly as directed to Trump's approach to NATO since his first term. He's pushed things via direct means tying NATO payments to his threats of US tariffs to NATO members (https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/01/23/trump-at-davos-nato-5-push-tariff-warnings-for-europe) and also indirectly through basically saying "be a shame if we just let Putin have his way with you broke fucks" (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/trump-rally-nato/677426/). Criticizing Trump for treating NATO as a protection racket was also a common line of attack from Biden (other world leaders, too) and Michael McFaul (https://michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/trump-does-not-understand-or-value). If the means Trump is using to enforce NATO payment doesn't meet your standard of coercion and seems appropriate, cool let's discuss that. If using this analogy is going to bog down discussion, I'll use other terms moving on.
That said, my overall point is that the underlying power dynamic of how Trump thinks of NATO, using whatever terms you want to describe it, is actually an accurate reflection of how the alliance has always functioned in reality. He's being a nut about it, but not wrong. Like a caricature that, though exaggerated, highlights real features of the alliance that aren't savoury even with aligned interests and values among member nations. Even if I'm wrong on my position that this is always how NATO worked, Trump is driving NATO to function like this now. Very notable that leaders from NATO member states across the EU and Canada all met yesterday to discuss security (primarily about Ukraine), without any US representation present. So, even as the US seems to be wavering on staying in NATO, it seems like there's new security alliances forming to deal with Russian aggression sans American input.
Well, from my pov it's not a distinction without a difference any more than the distinction between a mob run protection racket and a private security firm is a distinction without a difference. It's the key distinction that separates selling a service from basic extortion, in my mind.
Like, you could say that if a store doesn't hire security, they will face a threat from potential criminals. If the security firm is not causing this initial threat, then the fact that the store has to worry about what will happen if they don't hire the security firm only proves how valuable the service they are providing actually is.
With regard to Trump treating it like a protection racket, that's because Trump seems to actually think it is one, and doesn't quite seem to get the concept that when people talk about wanting them to meet their obligations, they're referring to upping defense spending in their countries. Not paying us some kind of dues, as Trump seems to mistakenly assume. The second link you cited sums it up pretty well.
Quote"The United States' greatest "return on investment" from our alliances does not come from increases in their military spending. Peace is our return, a "dividend" that produces economic and security gains for the American people. The United States has benefited economically from peace and stability in Europe and Asia. Trade and investment with our allies in Europe over the past several decades have contributed trillions of dollars to U.S. economic prosperity.
It's really not about "collecting dues " or whatever Trump thinks. He's not exposing how it really works or saying the quiet part out loud, he made it very clear he has a lack of understanding of the basic logic behind the alliance and thinks, as he always does, in terms of a zero sum game where our allies are just taking advantage of us. This has been a consistent message from Trump since he first started auditioning for running for president in 1987.
Now, is it actually extortion to threaten tariffs in order to pressure allies into higher defense budgets? I don't know. It's not obvious to me that it is. You can put a tariff on any country for any reason. It's just a tax on imports. It's not obvious to me that it's coercion of any kind. But I do think it's retarded, and very likely to strain your alliance.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Mar 04, 2025, 02:56 AMYou said upthread that NATO has always been like that, so Trump aside, can you give specific examples of what you mean?
Not so much because I think NATO has functioned this way by virtue of the sheer power disparity between the US and all other member nations who are reliant on that force, and the use of the alliance as an apparatus for global American hegemony. Trump is mostly an extreme manifestation of this but like a caricature, it helps reveal some real features. So, I see it as more of a baked in feature of the overall design of NATO, even taking into account the truly aligned interests and necessary security of member states, rather than something that can be pointed to with specific examples particularly since most of what Trump is doing out in the open has previously been done behind closed doors. Jwb's point about this being more like private security rather than extortion is interesting because he lays out a lot of things in that post that I agree with, but we just seem to have a different conclusion on how to characterize it. I could probably dig around for some obscure examples to toss into the pot, but I'm about tapped out for the NATO part of the discussion because I'm seeing this starting to loop back to restating the same things again and again and again from a post where this was just one point among others. I'm just not so invested in this idea :laughing:
US tariffs take effect and Mexico, Canada and China retaliate with their own tariffs on the US (https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-china-643086a6dc7ff716d876b3c83e3255b0)
@Auroras In Ice Fair enough, understood. I'll just note that no country has ever left NATO.
Just make everyone's life harder for no reason, thanks Trump.
Quote from: SGR on Mar 04, 2025, 05:11 PMUS tariffs take effect and Mexico, Canada and China retaliate with their own tariffs on the US (https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-china-643086a6dc7ff716d876b3c83e3255b0)
The UAW is pleased...
UAW Statement on New Tariff Action (https://uaw.org/uaw-statement-on-new-tariff-action/)QuoteFor 40 years, we've seen the devastating effects of so-called "free trade" on the working class. Corporations have been driving a non-stop race to the bottom by killing good blue-collar jobs in America to go exploit some poor worker in another country by paying poverty wages. Tariffs are a powerful tool in the toolbox for undoing the injustice of anti-worker trade deals. We are glad to see an American president take aggressive action on ending the free trade disaster that has dropped like a bomb on the working class.
There's been a lot of talk of these tariffs "disrupting" the economy. But if corporate America chooses to price-gouge the American consumer or attack the American worker because they don't want to pay their fair share, corporate America bears the blame for that decision. The working class suffered all the pain of NAFTA, and we won't suffer all the pain of undoing NAFTA. We want to see corporate America, from the auto industry and beyond, recommit to the working class that makes the products and generates the profits that keep this country running.
The UAW is in active negotiations with the Trump Administration about their plans to end the free trade disaster. We look forward to working with the White House to shape the auto tariffs in April to benefit the working class. We want to see serious action that will incentivize companies to change their behavior, reinvest in America, and stop cheating the American worker, the American consumer, and the American taxpayer.
China, however, is not pleased...
China vows to 'fight till the end' as Trump escalates trade war (https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/03/china/china-two-sessions-xi-stability-trump-intl-hnk/index.html)QuoteChina has vowed to "fight till the end" after US President Donald Trump escalated his trade war by doubling tariffs on all Chinese imports to 20%.
Beijing hit back at Trump's levies by imposing retaliatory tariffs of up to 15% on selected American goods, expanding export controls to a dozen US firms and filing a lawsuit at the World Trade Organization. It also sent a stern warning to the Trump administration: Chinese people will never bow to "hegemony or bullying."
"Pressure, coercion and threats are not the right ways to engage with China. Trying to exert maximum pressure on China is a miscalculation and a mistake," Lin Jian, a spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry, told a regular news briefing Tuesday afternoon. "If the US insists on waging a tariff war, trade war, or any other kind of war, China will fight till the end."
"we won't suffer all the pain of undoing NAFTA. We want to see corporate America, from the auto industry and beyond, recommit to the working class that makes the products and generates the profits that keep this country running."
This is very naive.
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Mar 04, 2025, 07:40 PM@Auroras In Ice
Fair enough, understood. I'll just note that no country has ever left NATO.
Awesome. I'm sure the topic will heat up again given the increasing calls from the GOP and Musk for the US to leave NATO and recent meetings of Canada and EU members regarding Russia without the US. Things are changing and it's hard to know what NATO will look like moving forward, if indeed it continues at all.
--------------------------------------
Re: Tariffs
Big day in Canada with Trudeau's statement this morning clarifying that Trump's intent is to cripple us economically so we soften up for annexation primarily as a means to capture our resources. Impressed with the unity and strength in the Canadian response including the retaliatory tariffs, potential for Ontario and other provinces to cut power and resources to the eastern US, and calls from a few cabinet officials to acquire nukes or secure nuclear protection from EU allies (which may have been discussed when Trudeau was in the UK meeting with Starmer and King Chuckyboy, but that's just rumor at this point). US products are being pulled from the shelves in many provinces and many have already been boycotting US products for weeks. Even our Conservative party leader who has been running as a Trump wannabe had a pretty pointed and strong statement. There seems to be a pretty strong consensus from the populace to hit back, hit back hard beyond trade war tactics, the Alberta premier who has been trying to play kiss ass with Trump and pushing appeasement seems to have finally shut the fuck up, and people ready for impact. The segment of the population who are MAGA cultists are still cheering and thinking that Trump is coming to save them and that they will live happy and free as American hillbillies.. because that's exactly how life would be like after annexation, just ask Ukrainians and Palestinians!
Not a fan of this shit.
China deserves to take over. At least their autocrats are intelligent.
Trump address to joint session of Congress (basically the unofficial "State of the Union") for those interested - starting soon:
"Wahhh wahhh wahhh Biden did it! Immigrants did it! Trans people did it! I'm gonna censor the internet because the other kids made fun of me in class! Wahhh!"
what a whiny bitch.
MAGA is a white supremacist, misogynist hate cult that stands for nothing but suffering, rape and death. This is pure fucking evil.
It's so surreal to see my brother's death frivolously weaponized for political whatever the fuck this is
Quote from: Weekender on Mar 04, 2025, 11:09 PMChina deserves to take over. At least their autocrats are intelligent.
America could certainly use the upgrade in public transportation and infrastructure.
The BBC fact-checked some of the claims made in Trump's SOTU speech. Unsurprisingly, many are incorrect or misrepresented.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3ylpd2n9no?at_campaign_type=owned&at_medium=emails&at_objective=awareness&at_ptr_type=email&at_ptr_name=salesforce&at_campaign=uspoliticsunspun&at_email_send_date=20250305&at_send_id=4302337&at_link_title=https%3a%2f%2fwww.bbc.com%2fnews%2farticles%2fcp3ylpd2n9no&at_bbc_team=crm
"Transparency" is a word we are all used to, and it rolls off the tongue easily enough, but in the coming Presidential term, we will be needing its opposite with increasing frequency: opacity, murkiness don't have the same ring to them, but that's what we're already seeing, especially regarding DOGE- its statistics, its members and even its leader, who is, on an alternating basis either Musk, or not Musk.
Here's Rachel Maddow warning America about what could be coming down the line pretty soon:-
I'm starting to think Trump/Republicans have a mole inside the Democrats' social media strategy team :laughing: :
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1897628523625406559
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/JTzPN5kkobFv7X0zPJ/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952ra6vqm43ncbhhvlehjtbxpvpz7vau9bz9ip906t0&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
I like that better than this one. The Senate Democrats vid.
https://x.com/jj_talking/status/1897665932690125216
Even New Zealand is running scared now! ::)
QuoteNew Zealand has fired its most senior envoy to the United Kingdom over remarks that questioned US President Donald Trump's grasp of history.
At an event in London on Tuesday, High Commissioner Phil Goff compared efforts to end the war between Russia and Ukraine to the 1938 Munich Agreement, which allowed Adolf Hitler to annex part of Czechoslovakia.
Mr Goff recalled how Sir Winston Churchill had criticised the agreement, then said of the US leader: "President Trump has restored the bust of Churchill to the Oval Office. But do you think he really understands history?"
His comments were "deeply disappointing" and made his position "untenable", New Zealand's Foreign Minister Winston Peters said.
His comments came after Trump paused military aid to Kyiv following a heated exchange with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office last week.
He contrasted Trump with Churchill who, while estranged from the British government, spoke against the Munich Agreement as he saw it as a surrender to Nazi Germany's threats.
Mr Goff quoted how Churchill had rebuked then UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain: "You had the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, yet you will have war."
Peters said Mr Goff's views did not represent those of the New Zealand government.
"When you are in that position you represent the government and the policies of the day, you're not able to free think, you are the face of New Zealand," local media reported Peters saying.
"It's not the way you behave as the front face of a country, diplomatically," he said, adding that he would have taken the same course of action no matter which country was being spoken about.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3yew446k5o?at_campaign=crm&at_medium=emails&at_campaign_type=owned&at_objective=conversion&at_ptr_name=salesforce&at_ptr_type=media&at_creation=[84177_NEWS_NLB_DEF_WK09_THU_06_MAR]-20250306-[bbcnews_nzfiresenvoywhoquestionedtrumpgraspofhistory_newsworld]
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 06, 2025, 11:39 PMI like that better than this one. The Senate Democrats vid.
https://x.com/jj_talking/status/1897665932690125216
Quote from: SGR on Mar 06, 2025, 09:19 PMI'm starting to think Trump/Republicans have a mole inside the Democrats' social media strategy team :laughing: :
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1897628523625406559
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/where-things-stand/jd-vances-neofascist-reading-list (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/where-things-stand/jd-vances-neofascist-reading-list)
JD Vance and Elon Musk are Nazis
Quote from: SGR on Mar 06, 2025, 09:19 PMI'm starting to think Trump/Republicans have a mole inside the Democrats' social media strategy team :laughing: :
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1897628523625406559
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/JTzPN5kkobFv7X0zPJ/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952ra6vqm43ncbhhvlehjtbxpvpz7vau9bz9ip906t0&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
why are all of our fighters a bunch of frail looking women? Even Marco Rubio could take a few of these broads.
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 10, 2025, 07:35 PMwhy are all of our fighters a bunch of frail looking women? Even Marco Rubio could take a few of these broads.
The only frail one is Judy Chu. You pick Marco Rubio of all people? Jasmine would wash him in a fight so easily.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 10, 2025, 09:57 PMYou pick Marco Rubio of all people? Jasmine would wash him in a fight so easily.
(https://media.tenor.com/UI8dNi_qnZsAAAAM/marco-rubio-drink.gif)
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 10, 2025, 09:57 PMThe only frail one is Judy Chu. You pick Marco Rubio of all people? Jasmine would wash him in a fight so easily.
Jasmine's fight with MTG was hilarious. :laughing:
For those that haven't seen it:
And the obligatory remix:
Ok, so the executive order to "combat antisemitism" (read: license to punish anyone who criticizes the Israeli state) is order 14188.
The handlers of this administration are Nazis and I'm going to keep sounding the alarm on this.
"First they came for the anti-semites, and I said nothing..."
If they actually gave a shit about antisemitism I'd think it would probably be a more pressing thing to go after the billionaire with political influence who did two nazi salutes on live tv and regularly retweets openly antisemitic conspiracy shit posted by white nationalists instead of illegally deporting a Palestinian activist speaking out against the mass violence committed by Israel against civilians in Gaza and branding protests against that violence as "supporting Hamas" but that's just me.
They can say they're combating antisemitism all they want, actions speak louder than words.
Unfortunately now, the US dictionary defines antisemitism as "anything at all that criticises Israel, including the Israeli State". Like I said before, their forebears must be turning in their graves at the things being done in their name.
I was just poking fun at the example, i wasn't suggesting they care about anti semitism sincerely. But concern trolling about antisemitism isn't exactly from the Nazi playbook. I feel like all roads lead back to the 3rd reich whenever an American tries to make a historical comparison. We really need to start teaching kids about at least one other historical event besides ww2, just for good measure.
Sure, that part isn't from the Nazi playbook. I didn't mean to imply that it was, I was referring to the 14 and 88 in the EO number. And the aforementioned salutes, and the conspiracies Elon regularly takes part in spreading, and all the other rhetoric and dogwhistling the "unified reich" has partaken in. I don't "reach for the Nazis every time I make a historical comparison", I'm calling out pretty explicitly Nazi stuff.
I can't believe I, a Jewish woman, am being lectured on the appropriateness of my calling the Nazi saluting guys Nazis by a guy with a Sam Hyde avatar.
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 11, 2025, 11:46 PMI was just poking fun at the example, i wasn't suggesting they care about anti semitism sincerely. But concern trolling about antisemitism isn't exactly from the Nazi playbook. I feel like all roads lead back to the 3rd reich whenever an American tries to make a historical comparison. We really need to start teaching kids about at least one other historical event besides ww2, just for good measure.
I haven't heard anyone compare Trump and his admin to Idi Amin Dada (who venerated Hitler). We just need RFK Jr. to change his qualifier (https://nypost.com/2024/07/03/us-news/rfk-jr-would-eat-virtually-anything-but-not-a-dog-or-human/) of eating anything to 'except for dogs/monkeys'. I mean, what's healthier for you, rotisserie human thigh or a Big Mac?
(https://i.redd.it/nji4jbuypsnc1.gif)
I didn't say anything about the salute, I responded to your example with a joke and you decided to respond to me seriously as if I think they care about antisemitism. And lol @ "as a Jewish woman.." You really can't help yourself, can you?
If you want to know whether I think they're actual Nazis, I don't, in the 3rd reich sense. I think you could argue fascist. But they definitely lean into the aesthetics because 1) there are neo nazis who support them and 2) they actually benefit rhetorically from "triggering the libs." They have made it virtually impossible to call out in any effective way, and typically they manage to portray the other side as being unhinged for calling everything Nazi this and fascist that. That's part of why I try to be more particular with my language. But don't change the subject to any and every example of Nazi like behavior and aesthetics that you can find in MAGA, because you're shifting the goal posts. I wouldn't have joked about calling him a Nazi over the salute. I'd have left that alone. So you're just changing the topic.
Also, big ups to Sam Hyde. I hate his politics but he's by far the funniest anti semite out there:
Here's to hoping he doesn't get deported.
@Jwb Fair enough on your first response. I tend to take this stuff seriously by default.
Downplay it all you want, I do believe that MAGA are nazi sympathizers and support a large amount of their rhetoric and policies at the absolute least, whatever you may want to say about them not being dyed in the wool nazis, whatever. They're fascists who pander to their large following of white nationalists and platform antisemitic conspiracy rhetoric. We can agree to disagree I guess, but I don't really think the distinction between supporters of nazism and 'just lib-triggering trolls' or whatever who happen to say a lot of the same racist misogynist fascist shit as nazis is really that wide of a gulf at all. And if we've established that it's okay to call them nazis for doing and defending the salute, then i don't even know what we're arguing about.
And yes, I was raised in the Jewish culture and my mother is still a strong follower of the faith. I don't know why you have to sneer at me for semi-jokingly commenting on the irony of this exchange.
Well if you are the type of person who just casually relates the term Nazi to some generic mold of white, antisemitic right wing racists, then sure. All this shit looks the same to you and thus you don't see any meaningful distinction to make. You probably don't see a distinction between Nazism and fascism, either. But Nazism wasn't just a German replica of Italian fascism. I understand these distinctions are irrelevant to the average person, though I tend to think if these terms are going to play such a prominent role in our modern politics then we really should understand them better than I think we currently do.
But to be clear, I think that the ideology of Musk and Vance is explicitly authoritarian, and derived seemingly largely from Peter Theil and Curtis Yarvin. So by the way most Americans define fascist, they fit. But it's not exactly identical to 20th century fascism.
I'd say that's fair. When I call them Nazis I don't really even mean to imply that their ideology and practices are identical to Nazism or any 20th century fascism, I tend to mostly invoke the word "Nazi" in reference to the stuff they do like the salute and the 1488 that is explicitly Nazi coded, and in most other contexts if I call them Nazis then yes, it's probably not totally accurate in a literal sense but I'm using it as shorthand for "clearly racist misogynist fascist etc movement". But fair enough on the distinctions and I agree that it's good to emphasize where they do differ.
JD Vance is a white supremacist
https://bsky.app/profile/kissphoria.bsky.social/post/3lkbjcfvd6c2w (https://bsky.app/profile/kissphoria.bsky.social/post/3lkbjcfvd6c2w)
Good to know republicans have their priorities in order to deal with the nationwide epidemic of... children imitating animal sounds.
These people are using their time and taxpayers' money to police the speech of children. Land of the free, ladies and gentlemen.
CNN has a good article on why this spending bill is a bit of a catch-22 for democrats.
Democrats' first big chance to check Trump may make them look even weaker (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-first-big-chance-to-check-trump-may-make-them-look-even-weaker/ar-AA1AOqE7)
My guess is that there will just enough crossover from democrats to pass the funding bill (avoiding a government shutdown), and Schumer and others will still present the amount of 'no' votes as a good sign of symbolic resistance.
Up yours, Trump! Talk to the paw!
(https://media.tenor.com/Hgi6GaTBr6sAAAAM/kitty-stop.gif)
News Alert: Judge orders Trump administration to reinstate thousands of fired employees at VA, Defense Department and other agencies
A federal judge has ordered half a dozen federal agencies to "immediately" reinstate probationary employees fired last month as part of the Trump administration's effort to rapidly shrink the federal workforce.
The preliminary injunction issued from the bench by US District Judge William Alsup requires the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior and Treasury to rehire the employees. The judge said that he might extend the order to cover other federal agencies at a later time.
Quote from: SGR on Mar 13, 2025, 06:46 PMMy guess is that there will just enough crossover from democrats to pass the funding bill (avoiding a government shutdown), and Schumer and others will still present the amount of 'no' votes as a good sign of symbolic resistance.
Chuck Schumer says he will vote to advance GOP funding bill amid Democratic divisions over shutdown strategy (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/chuck-schumer-says-he-will-vote-to-advance-gop-funding-bill-amid-democratic-divisions-over-shutdown-strategy/ar-AA1ASDsd)(https://media0.giphy.com/media/N72skL6PawY4Jz9M3n/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952gp936ev5kn5n3etvdcmewkj9ahqor8auy0qkexzv&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Tough spot for him to be in, but I think he probably picked the best of bad options.
It's not a good idea to play chicken with a government shutdown.The dems need to be able to credibly say they are trying to keep the government working.
Quote from: Weekender on Mar 14, 2025, 08:04 PMIt's not a good idea to play chicken with a government shutdown.The dems need to be able to credibly say they are trying to keep the government working.
I don't disagree, but many Democrats (and their base) seem to be in disagreement with Schumer.
Pelosi slams 'false choice' on shutdown, indirectly criticizing Schumer (https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/03/14/congress/nancy-pelosi-chuck-schumer-shade-00230846)Ocasio-Cortez mobilizes Democrats against Schumer plan as colleagues privately urge her to consider primary challenge (https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/13/politics/ocasio-cortez-schumer-democratic-shutdown-plan/index.html)(https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/gettyimages-843388456-1.jpg?quality=85&w=2400)
I think Schumer is probably in the right here.
Quote from: Weekender on Mar 14, 2025, 08:51 PMI think Schumer is probably in the right here.
Yeah, the messaging was poor though. This was from only two days ago:
Schumer Says Democrats Will Block GOP Plan to Avert Shutdown (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-12/schumer-says-democrats-will-block-gop-plan-to-avert-us-shutdown)Then, less than a day later, he's on board with passing the spending bill, with no additional concessions from the GOP. So I get the frustration, especially since this is the first time in Trump's second term that the Dems have actually had real leverage. Many wanted to see them make something of that leverage, but as you point out, it's a dangerous game of chicken to play.
Disappointed but not shocked as a NYer both my Senators decided to vote for that crap. No resistance at all. If three Democrats would have voted no, they could have fought back a bit and negotiated.
Yeah, what is the argument for Schumer being right? It just seems like he's suggesting a shutdown would do more short term harm, but if you never have the balls to let the Republicans be forced to own the consequences of their actions, then you are just always going to cave every single time.
His arguments that somehow Elon and Trump want the shutdown and that it would only aid their efforts in DOGE seem undermined by the fact that Trump is personally giving his stamp of approval to Schumer's decision and has already praised him publicly for it. That's something Trump doesn't do for Democrats, or even most Republicans, unless they happen to be giving him something he wants.
His other argument that only Trump and co can pull us out of a shutdown once we go into one also seems like he's ignoring the fact that polling suggests most people would blame the Republicans for the shutdown, it's going to create even more instability and turmoil in the stock market and is going to create all sorts of other turmoil that Schumer alludes to but doesn't seem to consider that all of this provides political leverage for the Democrats, possibly the only significant leverage they might hope to have for the next 2 years.
At least he's contributing to helping Europe go dry: 200 percent on alcohol imports? :laughing: #EUProhibition2025 :beer:
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 15, 2025, 02:52 PMYeah, what is the argument for Schumer being right? It just seems like he's suggesting a shutdown would do more short term harm, but if you never have the balls to let the Republicans be forced to own the consequences of their actions, then you are just always going to cave every single time.
His arguments that somehow Elon and Trump want the shutdown and that it would only aid their efforts in DOGE seem undermined by the fact that Trump is personally giving his stamp of approval to Schumer's decision and has already praised him publicly for it. That's something Trump doesn't do for Democrats, or even most Republicans, unless they happen to be giving him something he wants.
His other argument that only Trump and co can pull us out of a shutdown once we go into one also seems like he's ignoring the fact that polling suggests most people would blame the Republicans for the shutdown, it's going to create even more instability and turmoil in the stock market and is going to create all sorts of other turmoil that Schumer alludes to but doesn't seem to consider that all of this provides political leverage for the Democrats, possibly the only significant leverage they might hope to have for the next 2 years.
A Government shutdown is not an opportunity for leverage. Republicans have the advantage of not giving a single fuck about anything but Schumer recognizes that his job is to keep the lights on.
As for the political implications, I think he's resigned to letting the American people "fuck around and find out".
Quote from: Weekender on Mar 15, 2025, 05:49 PMA Government shutdown is not an opportunity for leverage. Republicans have the advantage of not giving a single fuck about anything but Schumer recognizes that his job is to keep the lights on.
As for the political implications, I think he's resigned to letting the American people "fuck around and find out".
Republicans have always used the government shutting down as leverage so idk what you are talking about.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 15, 2025, 06:33 PMRepublicans have always used the government shutting down as leverage so idk what you are talking about.
Yeah because they're cretins.
Quote from: Weekender on Mar 15, 2025, 06:34 PMYeah because they're cretins.
Politicians be Politicians.
Democrats are just weak and spineless with no clear message
(https://i.redd.it/ki7bh94cgn791.jpg)
I agree with SGR and Weekender on the Schumer vote. It was the lesser of two evils. Here's why.
Had the shutdown gone ahead, both federal workers and contractors would have been furloughed. They are the D base, and would have blamed Ds who could have kept govt open. To end the shutdown the Ds would have to do an about face and vote yes. So what's gained? This was a 100% R bill with no D input and offered as a take it or leave it. The alternative was for the Ds to holdout until they got XYZ concessions.
Does anyone know if that would be worth it? Of course not. Divil you know...
Now hear this:
On Feb 10, our fearless leader signed an EO pausing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) on the basic grounds that it has been used unfairly against US citizens and corporations, (such as for example those paying bribes to foreign entities). Here's a briefing on the matter from a law firm.
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/02/president-trump-issues-executive-order-to-halt-fcpa-enforcement (https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/02/president-trump-issues-executive-order-to-halt-fcpa-enforcement)
Here's an excerpt from a longer Matt Levine Money Stuff column in Bloomberg, which itself is based on an original WSJ piece.
QuoteRepresentatives of President Trump's family have held talks to take a financial stake in the U.S. arm of crypto exchange Binance, according to people familiar with the matter, a move that would put Trump in business with the firm that pleaded guilty in 2023 to violating anti-money-laundering requirements. At the same time, Binance's billionaire founder, Changpeng Zhao—who served four months in prison after pleading guilty to a related charge—has been pushing for the Trump administration to grant him a pardon, people familiar with the matter said. Zhao, widely known as CZ, remains Binance's largest shareholder.
The talks began after Binance reached out to allies of Trump last year offering to strike a business deal with the family as part of a plan to return the exiled company to the U.S. It is unclear what form the Trump family stake would take if the deal comes together or whether it would be contingent on a pardon. The possibilities include the Trumps taking the stake or the deal going through World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency venture backed by the Trumps that launched in September, the people said.
Sure! Okay! Right! I used to be a deal lawyer so I am drawn to the phrase "whether [the investment] would be contingent on a pardon." Like ... as a closing condition? You can imagine three approaches:
For most of recent US history, it would be extremely shocking for the president's family business to take a financial stake in a company and simultaneously give the founder-owner of that company a pardon: Just the appearance of a conflict of interest there seems insurmountable.
That said, you can almost imagine it happening, and even for the deal to be "contingent on a pardon," but in a coy winking sense. Like, the guy gets a pardon, the president's family makes the investment, reporters ask about it and the president says "oh that is a coincidence, the pardon and the investment were both made on their own merits, obviously the deal was not contingent on a pardon, how could you even suggest that?"
Maybe the pardon and the deal are discussed in the same meetings, but not in writing. In 2025 I sort of assume that Changpeng Zhao's lawyers are, like, writing into the securities purchase agreement "the closing of the Investment shall be conditional on Zhao receiving the Pardon." (Not legal advice!)
Who cares, man? Bribery is legal now. I mean it isn't, but the law isn't enforced.
Anyone even thinking let alone suggesting that these discussions and the pausing of enforcement of the FCPA are anything other than purely coincidental should (A) be ashamed of themselves, and (B) be aware that just like the Columbia University Palestinian Student Organizer, they too can be "disappeared". Watch your tongues and your pens peeps.
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 15, 2025, 02:52 PMHis arguments that somehow Elon and Trump want the shutdown and that it would only aid their efforts in DOGE seem undermined by the fact that Trump is personally giving his stamp of approval to Schumer's decision and has already praised him publicly for it. That's something Trump doesn't do for Democrats, or even most Republicans, unless they happen to be giving him something he wants.
I think a more convincing indicator that Trump wanted the spending bill to pass (more than he wanted the alternative) was his primary threats directed at Republican Thomas Massie (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/donald-trump-wants-to-end-this-republican-mavericks-career-but-the-lawmaker-is-not-too-worried-heres-why-the-president-is-going-after-him/articleshow/118990920.cms?from=mdr) (who voted against the spending bill). It's nothing new between Trump and Massie, and Massie is one of the few members of the Republican party who could lay any legitimate claim to integrity when it comes to fiscal conservatism (in other words, he's garnered credibility within his party), but the threats were probably more for the purpose of keeping other Republicans in line when it comes to passing the bill. When it comes to Schumer, my guess is that Trump saw the in-fighting going on among Democrats, and saw a very easy and cheap way to sow more chaos and discord in their party (he's done this before - remember how he used to publicly tweet complaints about how much Bernie was mistreated and cheated by the DNC? Do I believe Trump gives two-shits about how the DNC treated Bernie? I don't think so.)
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 15, 2025, 02:52 PMHis other argument that only Trump and co can pull us out of a shutdown once we go into one also seems like he's ignoring the fact that polling suggests most people would blame the Republicans for the shutdown, it's going to create even more instability and turmoil in the stock market and is going to create all sorts of other turmoil that Schumer alludes to but doesn't seem to consider that all of this provides political leverage for the Democrats, possibly the only significant leverage they might hope to have for the next 2 years.
There was a polling indicator for that (https://archive.ph/LIcNd), but I think there's at least a few areas of uncertainty. One of the obvious ones being that we're a long ways (in politics, a lifetime) from the 2026 midterms, and by then many other headlines and stories will probably have eclipsed this one in the mind of voters, so what would the lasting impression, if any really, of this government shutdown be if most (R)s voted to pass the bill and most (D)s voted against it? Another issue, as we've all seen, is that the Dems have recently lacked clear and strong leadership and messaging. If they were to force the shutdown, would they be able to unify in a way that makes their message clear and dominant in the minds of voters, or would Republicans, given that they are much more unified, be able to set the narrative and keep them on the defensive? Another question would be, could the Democrats agree and unify on what concessions they want the Republicans to make to get them to agree with passing the bill, or would just enough Democrats feel enough pressure and vote to pass the bill after the shutdown with little if any concessions from Republicans, with the result being similar levels of Dem disagreement and infighting as we're seeing now (at that point, what would the government shutdown actually gain them politically)?
I can see the argument in favor or against what they ultimately did, and while I agree that voting against it and incurring the shutdown would give the Democrats political leverage - a big unanswered question is: "Could the Democrats have capitalized on that leverage in a way that would make the shutdown worth the pain it would cause?".
Then again, maybe old Chucky doesn't give two fucks about any of this, and just wanted to make sure there would be no conflicts with his book tour next week (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/3/14/2310308/-Schumer-s-Book-Tour).
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 15, 2025, 06:51 PMPoliticians be Politicians.
Democrats are just weak and spineless with no clear message
Nah the Democrats as a whole do believe in a certain kind of civic responsibility that goes above politics. You can see that as a weakness or a strength.
Quote from: Weekender on Mar 17, 2025, 12:50 AMNah the Democrats as a whole do believe in a certain kind of civic responsibility that goes above politics. You can see that as a weakness or a strength.
It's a weakness when they have no strategy and are heavily infested in performative actions that don't make a difference other than having "better" optics.
Recent polling results aren't rosy for Dems - and these results are before they caved on the spending bill.
Trump up, Dems down in new polls - Axios (https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-high-dems-low-new-poll)CNN Poll: Democratic Party's favorability drops to a record low (https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/16/politics/cnn-poll-democrats/index.html)One problem for the Democrats is a lack of unity and leadership, but nature abhors a vacuum:
QuoteDemocrats, who overwhelmingly consider Trump too extreme, have yet to consolidate around any one-party leader to serve as a counterpoint. Asked in an open-ended question to name the Democratic leader they feel "best reflects the core values" of the party, 10% of Democratic-aligned adults name New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 9% former vice president Kamala Harris, 8% Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and 6% House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Another 4% each name former president Barack Obama and Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, with Schumer joining a handful of others at 2%.
Hakeem Jeffries was Pelosi's protege and handpicked successor, but he's obviously not getting the job done. He's like a Temu Obama, but with the energy levels and charisma of Ben Carson. AOC scoring highest gives reason for some optimism among Democrats though, as she's much more charismatic and energetic - and I've sung her praises (and predicted her eventual presidency) here before. One thing AOC is really good at, much like Trump, is knowing how to get attention and drive narratives. In a media ecosystem dominated by thousands of podcasts, social media, and short-form video content, attention is one of the most valuable assets to have in politics.
Quote from: SGR on Mar 15, 2025, 11:48 PMI think a more convincing indicator that Trump wanted the spending bill to pass (more than he wanted the alternative) was his primary threats directed at Republican Thomas Massie (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/donald-trump-wants-to-end-this-republican-mavericks-career-but-the-lawmaker-is-not-too-worried-heres-why-the-president-is-going-after-him/articleshow/118990920.cms?from=mdr) (who voted against the spending bill). It's nothing new between Trump and Massie, and Massie is one of the few members of the Republican party who could lay any legitimate claim to integrity when it comes to fiscal conservatism (in other words, he's garnered credibility within his party), but the threats were probably more for the purpose of keeping other Republicans in line when it comes to passing the bill. When it comes to Schumer, my guess is that Trump saw the in-fighting going on among Democrats, and saw a very easy and cheap way to sow more chaos and discord in their party (he's done this before - remember how he used to publicly tweet complaints about how much Bernie was mistreated and cheated by the DNC? Do I believe Trump gives two-shits about how the DNC treated Bernie? I don't think so.)
Yes, but think about the difference. He's praising Bernie as an attack on the Dems, but it's an attack that serves his world view. If he were to articulate the attack on the Dems he's launching by praising Sanders, it would be that they are corrupt, rig elections, etc. Things that are firmly already part of Trump's narrative. What is the articulated version of Trump's attack on the Dems this time?
I think the simpler answer is he praised him because he did something Trump wanted him to do. Either way, we agree he did want the bill to pass. One of the main premises of Schumer's argument was that in fact Trump really wanted a shutdown. As long as we can agree that is nonsense, I don't think these differences of interpretation over why he praised Schumer really matter much. Either way, Schumer's argument is flawed.
QuoteThere was a polling indicator for that (https://archive.ph/LIcNd), but I think there's at least a few areas of uncertainty. One of the obvious ones being that we're a long ways (in politics, a lifetime) from the 2026 midterms, and by then many other headlines and stories will probably have eclipsed this one in the mind of voters, so what would the lasting impression, if any really, of this government shutdown be if most (R)s voted to pass the bill and most (D)s voted against it? Another issue, as we've all seen, is that the Dems have recently lacked clear and strong leadership and messaging. If they were to force the shutdown, would they be able to unify in a way that makes their message clear and dominant in the minds of voters, or would Republicans, given that they are much more unified, be able to set the narrative and keep them on the defensive? Another question would be, could the Democrats agree and unify on what concessions they want the Republicans to make to get them to agree with passing the bill, or would just enough Democrats feel enough pressure and vote to pass the bill after the shutdown with little if any concessions from Republicans, with the result being similar levels of Dem disagreement and infighting as we're seeing now (at that point, what would the government shutdown actually gain them politically)?
I can see the argument in favor or against what they ultimately did, and while I agree that voting against it and incurring the shutdown would give the Democrats political leverage - a big unanswered question is: "Could the Democrats have capitalized on that leverage in a way that would make the shutdown worth the pain it would cause?".
Then again, maybe old Chucky doesn't give two fucks about any of this, and just wanted to make sure there would be no conflicts with his book tour next week (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/3/14/2310308/-Schumer-s-Book-Tour).
They seem more unified on thinking that Schumer fucked up than I've seen them in a while tbh. Even Jefferies offered Schumer no support.
But yeah, I think it's hard to say with confidence that the Dems would have managed to exploit this situation to use the leverage they have to get meaningful concessions. But that's only because of the feckless, risk averse mentality that people like Schumer represent. It's fine to worry about being blamed for the shutdown, but does anybody sincerely think that would stop the GOP from doing so if the shoe was on the other foot?
The difference is they're just better at setting a narrative and running with that no matter what until it becomes the truth for enough people for them to win the propaganda war. The line the Democrats could hold, if they had a backbone, was that like others have mentioned the GOP didn't accept any input on this bill whatsoever. They love to talk about negotiating tactics every time Trump says something loopy, so they should understand this logic pretty easily. If you want the government to stay open, and you want our votes to do so, then you need to negotiate. It's that simple.
"But won't they just cave in a few days??" Possibly. But that goes back to being weak. The Trump admin does not want to have to deal with a shutdown right now, with all the other plates they have spinning and the chaos being created on the stock market. That's why Trump is so aggressive about saying if there was a shutdown, it would only be because of the Democrats etc. Because they know perfectly well what an albatross that would quickly become for their admin in the meantime, and if the GOP had to make some concessions, that could become a better option for them than dragging the fight out. That is, if the opposition was insistent and unwilling to budge.
The thing is, the only kind of leverage the Dems can really hope to get over Trump is through things like this that are going to have a lot of collateral damage. There isn't going to arise some neat, clean and politically safe way to oppose Trump. It's going to be a dirty fight, if it results in anything at all.
I would just love to hear from anyone who thinks this isn't the issue to try to make that fight out of, what is? What genuine opportunities do you see coming down the pike for the Dems to finally start acting like an actual opposition party? Or have you just resigned yourself to the idea that they sit by like spectators for the next 2 years while DOGE continues to gang rape the administrative state? It seems like the highest aspiration they have is to be the perfect victims.
I think the only thing left to do is let Trump destroy everything and hopefully tarnish the Republican party name to the point where Americans realize they can never be allowed to exist at any level of power ever again.
I posted earlier that we're beyond any political solution. People will now have to commit to the kinds of disruptive actions that come with the possibility of imprisonment.
I'm not sure how many of us are ready for that. Honestly I think there's a decent chance this is just the end of the line. The country will become a soft autocracy until at least Trump dies, maybe longer depending on his successor.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rsthNX4d/DJT-03-17-2025.png)
He swears he is a king that can do anything. Fucking idiot
Quote from: Psy-Fi on Mar 17, 2025, 08:41 PM(https://i.postimg.cc/rsthNX4d/DJT-03-17-2025.png)
You'll note that the tweet or whatever it is, is NOT an Executive Order. It's clickbait.
Apart from anything else, Trump can't string that amount of words together without having to have a lie-down and a rant at liberals/trans/DEI/Dems/insert as appropriate in the appropriate bodily orifice.
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 17, 2025, 07:23 PMYes, but think about the difference. He's praising Bernie as an attack on the Dems, but it's an attack that serves his world view. If he were to articulate the attack on the Dems he's launching by praising Sanders, it would be that they are corrupt, rig elections, etc. Things that are firmly already part of Trump's narrative. What is the articulated version of Trump's attack on the Dems this time?
I think the simpler answer is he praised him because he did something Trump wanted him to do. Either way, we agree he did want the bill to pass. One of the main premises of Schumer's argument was that in fact Trump really wanted a shutdown. As long as we can agree that is nonsense, I don't think these differences of interpretation over why he praised Schumer really matter much. Either way, Schumer's argument is flawed.
They seem more unified on thinking that Schumer fucked up than I've seen them in a while tbh. Even Jefferies offered Schumer no support.
But yeah, I think it's hard to say with confidence that the Dems would have managed to exploit this situation to use the leverage they have to get meaningful concessions. But that's only because of the feckless, risk averse mentality that people like Schumer represent. It's fine to worry about being blamed for the shutdown, but does anybody sincerely think that would stop the GOP from doing so if the shoe was on the other foot?
The difference is they're just better at setting a narrative and running with that no matter what until it becomes the truth for enough people for them to win the propaganda war. The line the Democrats could hold, if they had a backbone, was that like others have mentioned the GOP didn't accept any input on this bill whatsoever. They love to talk about negotiating tactics every time Trump says something loopy, so they should understand this logic pretty easily. If you want the government to stay open, and you want our votes to do so, then you need to negotiate. It's that simple.
"But won't they just cave in a few days??" Possibly. But that goes back to being weak. The Trump admin does not want to have to deal with a shutdown right now, with all the other plates they have spinning and the chaos being created on the stock market. That's why Trump is so aggressive about saying if there was a shutdown, it would only be because of the Democrats etc. Because they know perfectly well what an albatross that would quickly become for their admin in the meantime, and if the GOP had to make some concessions, that could become a better option for them than dragging the fight out. That is, if the opposition was insistent and unwilling to budge.
The thing is, the only kind of leverage the Dems can really hope to get over Trump is through things like this that are going to have a lot of collateral damage. There isn't going to arise some neat, clean and politically safe way to oppose Trump. It's going to be a dirty fight, if it results in anything at all.
I would just love to hear from anyone who thinks this isn't the issue to try to make that fight out of, what is? What genuine opportunities do you see coming down the pike for the Dems to finally start acting like an actual opposition party? Or have you just resigned yourself to the idea that they sit by like spectators for the next 2 years while DOGE continues to gang rape the administrative state? It seems like the highest aspiration they have is to be the perfect victims.
Yup, that's fair - I certainly agree that Trump wanted the bill to pass more than he wanted the alternative. But, I don't think that's the only part of the calculus. To Schumer's concern, and it was a concern voiced by others - my understanding is that in the event of a shutdown, it would in some sense empower the Trump admin, or more specifically the OMB (Office of Management and Budget), which is run by a conservative hardliner, to decide which federal gov't workers are essential and which are not essential - in this case, I'm guessing more likely than not that DOGE and its staff would get tagged as 'essential', but there would be wide discretion about who would get furloughed, and in the case of a protracted shutdown, the Trump admin would get wider latitude about which parts of government to reopen, and which parts to set DOGE upon in the meantime. I could be wrong about this and am open to being corrected, but it's just my understanding based on what I've read/heard. If my understanding is correct though, one could reasonably surmise that even though the shutdown obviously presents political risks to Democrats, it also presents political risks to Republicans, and the uncertainty of it all could have been seen by both Trump and Schumer as something undesirable, even if there was a chance there would be possible benefits to reap. The status quo, or the devil you know, is always the safe option - though I understand why that makes more sense for the party in power than the opposition party.
I think it's worth pointing out that this stopgap funding bill was a continuing resolution - in other words, the funding it entailed was mostly the same as what was passed under the Biden admin, with a few marginal changes (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-signs-gops-6-month-government-funding-bill-passed-by-congress) (non-defense spending trimmed by $13b from previous year, defense spending increased by $6b from last year).
EDIT: After reading some more, it appears there's differing opinions on this - some are saying there were significant changes made by Republicans to the previous spending bill passed under the Biden admin - so I'll just claim ignorance a bit on this one. I'm not about to read the fucking bill for myself though.
To your point of when the next chance is coming down the pike, since this is a 6-month stopgap bill, my understanding is that in September, they'll need to pass another funding bill. That funding bill will obviously be much closer to the midterms - and it allows plenty of time for favorability ratings to change. Per the links I posted in this thread in an earlier post, Trump is having some of the best approval ratings of his history right now, while Democrats are having some of the worst approval ratings of their history right now. So in some sense, you could see how the case could be made that it would be less politically risky for Democrats to take a hardline stance after Trump's approval ratings most likely start to dip.
I don't disagree with your assessment of the Democratic party right now by the way - spineless, weak, disoriented, disunified, etc. I honestly don't think they've done enough internal reflection of why they lost (and lost the popular vote) in 2024 quite yet. They don't have a grasp on how they lost, and what they need to do to change their perception in the eyes of voters. As a result, I get the sense that much of this outrage from Democrats and their base is motivated by the desire for opposition for opposition's sake (regardless of if the specific opposition is politically advantageous to them in the moment), rather than calculated opposition with a better alternative for voters at the ready and a plan of how to get there. I get it, when your party and its voters view Trump and his party as dictatorial fascists, it feels like opposition at any cost is always the right play, politically. But when you find out that the dictatorial fascists have a better approval rating than you do, it inevitably results in some self-confidence issues.
I was actually discussing this with Lisna recently, where he suggested maybe the best course of action, given the state of the Democrats, is to wait for Trump's fuck-ups to pile up and go from there. I was a little dubious at the time (because generally, I think a proactive plan is better than a reactive plan - but I guess for that to be true, you need to have a strong sense of
how you're going to be proactive), but I don't know, maybe in some ways that is the right play. James Carville seems to think so (https://dailyprogress.com/news/local/government-politics/article_19b36b08-fd3f-11ef-b8a2-ab80720c280d.html) - he calls it 'playing possum'
Quote"People don't like the Democratic Party," he told a crowd gathered to hear him speak at the University of Virginia last week. "Even Democrats don't like it."
Hundreds were in attendance at UVa's Alumni Hall last Thursday to hear from the 80-year-old former chief strategist for Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign.
That crowd, who moments earlier delighted themselves in a documentary screening about Carville's life, fell silent as the man known as the "Ragin' Cajun" sunk in his chair, stretched out his legs and delivered a dose of reality.
Why have so many soured on the Democratic Party?
"Because a political party is supposed to win an election," he said. "And when you lose, people don't like you, OK?"
"You watch this nonsense ... walking canes and holding up auction cards in protest," referring to the Democratic lawmakers in attendance at President Donald Trump's first joint address to Congress of his second term. Many held up paddles with "FALSE" printed on them throughout the speech, some wore pink as a "color of power and protest" and Texas Rep. Al Green waved his cane at the president before he was escorted out of the House chamber.
Carville described the scene in one word: "Stupid."
For nearly an hour during a question-and-answers session after a screening of "Winning Is Everything, Stupid!" Carville gave a dire prognosis of the Democratic Party, which has took a bruising at the polls last November, losing the White House, the Senate and the popular vote.
But Carville didn't present a problem without a solution. There is something Democrats can do, he said.
Democrats, who Carville said have increasingly became a party that is educated and coastal, need to sharpen up or they could lose "the whole god damn thing," he said.
"Right now, what the Democrats need to do is play possum. Be strategic," he said. "I want the party to be measured. To give the impression that they understand the grave risk that the country is in."
When the Democrats are ready to lay out all their cards and die on a hill in opposition, so be it. But right now, I think you could give them all an entire month, and they'd all still be arguing about which 5 or 6 hills they should die on - and other Democrats still would be more in favor of dying on a mountain or in a trench instead.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 17, 2025, 09:08 PMHe swears he is a king that can do anything. Fucking idiot
Unless anyone steps up to stop him, he's not wrong.
Not that it's all I took from that quote, but what did Carville mean when he said Democrats have become "coastal"? As an Irishman, I don't get it. Is this some politico-speak for being out of touch, the equivalent of the footballing term "already on the beach"?
Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 17, 2025, 10:57 PMNot that it's all I took from that quote, but what did Carville mean when he said Democrats have become "coastal"? As an Irishman, I don't get it. Is this some politico-speak for being out of touch, the equivalent of the footballing term "already on the beach"?
Sort of - he's referring to northeast coast, west coast, urban liberal elites.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/coastal-elite
Ah right, I see. No longer in touch with the common man, woman or small blue exploding thing that goes WHOOP! on alternate Tuesdays. Gotcha. Thanks.
I'm going to avoid directly quoting you
@SGR this time to cut down somewhat on the extended blocks of text, but here's my response, which is not coincidentally also an extended block of text:
Re: OMB giving them latitude to determine which parts of the government to fund. I did read that, and it's part of Schumer's broader narrative that in fact Musk and co want a shutdown. Because this arrangement enables DOGE even more.
From what I can tell (and i don't really pretend to know much of anything about the OMB, and all of Schumer's arguments I've read or heard don't delve much into specifics beyond the basic gist that you outlined), but it seems like this argument is assuming that the government in fact stays shut down for a protracted period of time and they just run with that dynamic to pursue their agenda with DOGE.
My thing is, I think that if anything they probably had a back up plan for how to continue their agenda if a shutdown happened, but I don't think they actually want the ramifications of a shutdown. So I think it's fairly plausible that the chaos from the market would have motivated them to the negotiating table, rather than just double down on accepting a shutdown. I wouldn't necessarily bet on it, because who can really predict what line this schizophrenic regime is going to take at any given time? But at the very least it's likely to cause serious problems for them, if they don't relent.
Let's say that hypothetically they just run with leaving the government shut down and continuing their efforts to gut the administrative state with DOGE. I think the sound of that is actually more appropriate than giving what they are currently doing the stamp of a bipartisan legitimacy, while they continue to gut the administrative state more or less unimpeded as it is. That's actually the worst of both worlds.
This lays bare how foolish Carville's strategy is. They are doing way more damage in 3 months than the Democrats will ever repair in 8 full years of back to back rule. So it seems to me like he came up with a suitable rationalization for doing nothing, which he had already planned on doing anyway. Which is well enough. He's out of touch anyway.
As for opposition for the sake of opposition, I mean even giving the appearance of opposition is much more useful than doing nothing. Much more useful still than giving your rubber stamp to their agenda with no resistance. Especially when you are trying to warn people about a regime that represents a threat to democracy. Like you suggested, their actions undermine their rhetoric about the threat this regime represents. And I don't think it's their rhetoric that is wrong, in this case.
As for September, the idea of them relying on Trump's polls to drop before they grow some nerve is also not particularly convincing as their poll numbers are way worse than his precisely because of how weak they are, imo. I'm sure this incident really helped them on their way to winning that popularity they so desperately need in order to be confident enough to stand up to Trump. Here's a crazy thought: maybe even the appearance of opposition would give people who are frustrated with Trump and Musk an alternative to latch onto. You aren't going to get more popular with this kind performance, that's for sure. I guess Schumer is just banking on people eventually forgetting how pathetic they are, given enough time, distance, and Trump?Just sounds like the path of least resistence, to me.
I do appreciate you laying out the other side, BTW, and I think the OMB argument in particular doesn't seem to me to be completely without merit. I just think it's far too risk averse given the fact that a lot of what is being described as the risk is something that is already happening anyway, that maybe they suppose could happen faster or more efficiently under a shutdown. But obviously I could be misjudging how drastic that difference would actually be.
I don't think the other baggage it would bring to them would be worth it; they're currently getting basically whatever they want anyway. With the turmoil on the stock markets already being caused by Trump's schizo trade wars, a shutdown seems like too much of a liability to me.
But if they decided to go down that rabbit hole, I do have a hard time assuming that's gonna hit the Dems harder than it hits the admin. So instead of just believing them when they warn you that you're gonna get all the blame, take a second to consider that's a self fulfilling prophecy they're attempting to speak into existence. If you tried that for once, maybe you would be the ones to set the narrative.
For as long as the Dems are just constantly scrambling in terror, they will simply exist as a living reminder that resistance is futile. I don't think that's a strategy. It's second nature to them, and so are all of the post hoc rationalizations for why it's always either inevitable or at the very least the lesser of two evils. That's literally all they know how to do.*
* To be fair, this time around most of them actually did seem on board with opposing the bill. Which actually makes it seem even worse. I hope Schumer hangs it up and moves to Boca Raton, where he belongs.
'Segregated facilities' are no longer explicitly banned in federal contracts (https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/03/18/nx-s1-5326118/segregation-federal-contracts-far-regulation-trump)
My goodness look at the time, it's fuck these racist shitsuckers o'clock.
Yeah
@Jwb, I don't think either of us are going to win awards for brevity. :laughing:
Part of your broader argument seems to be that because the Democrats are weak, they should have taken this opportunity to fight and at least give the appearance of opposition, as it might be politically beneficial to them and at least give their base some optimism. My view of it is a little bit different, from the standpoint that because they are so weak and directionless (and control neither chamber), coming off an election loss they haven't spent the time truly learning from, they're actually not prepared for this fight, and there's more they stand to lose than truly gain by taking up the fight, at least at this moment in time.
You did point out that the OMB furloughs/DOGE casualities in a shutdown probably rests on the assumption that the shutdown would be protracted - I think that's true. I don't really see a way the Dems could get any meaningful concessions from Republicans unless the shutdown was protracted enough to make them seriously feel political pressure. Negotiating amidst a shutdown is a game of political brinkmanship in essence (which is a large part of the reason I don't think the Democrats are prepared or suited for successfully playing that game at this moment in time). You mentioned that you think market chaos would bring Republicans to the negotiating table to make some concessions in the event of a shutdown, but based on history, markets usually see through the noise of a government shutdown (https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/markets/top-market-takeaways/tmt-will-a-shutdown-tarnish-a-banner-year-for-US-markets), and I wouldn't call the effects 'market chaos'. So I'd doubt market effects would apply much, if any real pressure to Republicans.
"What does a government shutdown mean for markets?"
What does a government shutdown mean for markets? The shutdown itself is likely to have a very limited impact on markets and the economy just like other idiosyncratic, short-lived events. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the economic effect of the 2018-2019 government shutdown (which, at five weeks long, was the longest shutdown on record). According to the CBO, each week the shutdown lasted shaved 10 to 15 basis points from the GDP.
Importantly, once the shutdown ended, economic output almost fully rebounded as workers and operations came back online. Markets understand that these shutdowns are temporary and as such tend to look through them.
We analyzed the previous government shutdowns since 2010 (there have been three) and their effect on markets. All things considered, markets didn't move much. On average, the S&P actually gained 4.7% while the government was in limbo – including a 10.3% return during the 35-day 2019 shutdown. Across other asset classes, bond yields were marginally lower on average, and the dollar tended to decline.
What's more, when we extend our timeline back to 1977, we can increase our sample size to 20 government shutdowns. The result for markets is similar. Stocks and core bonds showed no movement on average, treasury yields tended to move marginally higher and the dollar declined less than half a percent.
The thing that is clear is that most of the Democrat base seemed to want them to force the shutdown. That desire for opposition and at least some sign of life and will is understandable, but one thing that's not clear to me is what concession (or concessions) did the Democrats want exactly? The feeling I got (and I could be misguided or uninformed on this) is that in the event of a shutdown, the Democrats would need to huddle up and negotiate amongst themselves about which concessions they even want before trying to negotiate with Republicans - if this is true, again, this would seem like a leadership problem to me. If we look to the last government shutdown, which was in late 2018 - early 2019, the sticking point and the concession were the same thing, and it was clear - Trump wanted about $5b in funding for the border wall, and the Democrats were not having it. It resulted in the longest federal government shutdown in our history at 35 days. Trump eventually caved, but a couple things were different from today - Pelosi was the house majority speaker at the time (after the Dems recently won back the majority in the 2018 midterms), and she, as usual, brought her cutthroat and iron-fisted leadership to the table to oppose Trump. If Nancy was in a leadership role today, I'd have much more faith that the Democrats could get something meaningful from Republicans over a shutdown - but without her, Chucky is basically Robin without his Batman. And Temu Obama (Hakeem Jeffries) is no replacement at all for Batman.
Regardless of what exact concession(s) the Democrats would have wanted, it seemed pretty clear at least from the messaging that DOGE was a big sticking point. If we agree that the shutdown would likely need to be protracted for the Democrats to get a meaningful concession, it seems wise to look at what the effects were from the aforementioned government shutdown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States#December_2018%E2%80%93January_2019) - which of course had no DOGE and no Elon - spoiler below for a good summary I found on Wikipedia:
Spoiler
The 35-day shutdown, the longest in US history after surpassing the 21-day shutdown of 1995–1996, led to 380,000 federal workers being furloughed, and an additional 420,000 workers were required to work without any known payment dates, forcing many to find other paid work or protest against the extended period of the deadlock. Sharp reductions had to be made on payments from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Internal Revenue Service faced delays in processing around $140 billion worth of tax refunds, the FBI faced major disruptions to some of its investigations, staff shortages in the Transportation Security Administration caused airports to be closed down, and economic growth was reduced by billions of dollars.
The deadlock ended on January 25, 2019, when both chambers of Congress approved a plan to reopen the US government for 3 weeks, in order to facilitate negotiations for a suitable appropriation bill; Trump endorsed the plan amidst rising security and safety concerns. A source inside the White House told CNN that a "contributing catalyst" to the end of the shutdown was a significant number of absences of air traffic controllers, which caused significant flight delays and cancellations.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the shutdown cost the government $3 billion in back pay for furloughed workers, plus $2 billion in lost tax revenues due to reduced tax evasion compliance activities by the Internal Revenue Service, and a smaller amount of lost fees such as for visits to national parks, for a total of about $5 billion.
I do find it rather ironic/funny that the ~$5b that Trump wanted for the border wall was lost in the process of this government shutdown that was caused by opposition to the appropriation of that money. :laughing: But ultimately, the Democrats did get what they wanted. But imagine if, by incurring that shutdown over the border wall, it empowered Trump to keep building the wall during the process. That is essentially what it would be in this recent case of a shutdown if the sticking point was DOGE, as hundreds of thousands of federal employees would be either furloughed or forced to work without pay. If the problem with DOGE is that they are laying off workers and kneecapping important government programs, this shutdown also would have done that. And by doing that, the federal workers at the crux of all this negotiation would likely be the ones pressuring Democrats to cave to Trump - the same people the Democrats would be claiming to try and help. Unless the Democrats could negotiate DOGE out of existence (which I don't think there's any chance of), then Democrats would likely be negotiating about what DOGE can or can't do - perhaps a focus on a sacred cow they want to protect from DOGE - but if they took that route, they'd essentially be legitimizing DOGE that way too, a department that in their messaging they have proclaimed is unconstitutional.
You've mentioned a couple times the high degree of damage you believe DOGE is doing/how difficult or nearly impossible it would be for Democrats to recover/rebuild from the damage - but regarding how much damage DOGE is actually doing, I don't think that's entirely clear yet. Much of the cuts that DOGE has made (or attempted to make) are still finding opposition, pushback, and reversals in court, e.g.:
Judge says dismantling of USAID was unconstitutional, orders Musk to restore access for employees (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-dismantling-usaid-unconstitutional-orders-musk-restore-access/story?id=119923733)It's certainly possible that by the time the midterms roll around, much of what DOGE has tried to do/cut doesn't end up working - they could be remembered by then primarly for all kinds of chaos and disruption, with very little to show for it in terms of savings or increased 'government efficiency'. One thing I know about old people (the most reliable voter bloc, especially for midterms) is that the last thing they want is 'chaos'. Carville's strategy of 'playing possum' or 'doing nothing' obviously carries its own risks, but there is a chance it looks much less foolish in the future.
Or maybe not - I'm kinda spitballing here. We're playing with a lot of hypotheticals and speculation about the future. Maybe you're right that the Democrats would've been better off forcing the shutdown and gambling it would be worse for Trump/Republicans than it would be for them. I just don't think it's quite as obvious and clear-cut as many seem to be making it out to be. Likewise, I appreciate you laying out the case for the alternative path that the Democrats could've taken but did not. In six months, when the next funding bill comes around, and the Democrats pop their heads back out of the hole, we'll see whether or not they see their own shadow again. But when it's time for the midterm elections, I'd be hard-pressed to believe that anyone is really going to remember, be influenced by, or even care about this 'shutdown that never was'.
@DJChameleon,
@SGR I've very much enjoyed following this debate. Because as a centrist D I lean towards SGR's analysis I didn't want to participate.
And yes, you could both use editors. I'm not volunteering either for free or money,
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Mar 19, 2025, 11:51 PM@DJChameleon, @SGR
I've very much enjoyed following this debate. Because as a centrist D I lean towards SGR's analysis I didn't want to participate.
And yes, you could both use editors. I'm not volunteering either for free or money,
I think you meant to tag jwb right?
Meh, I don't know. Your avvy looks like he could assassinate the odd president.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 20, 2025, 12:25 AMI think you meant to tag jwb right?
Yes thanks! Senior moment, or something. Apols to jwb.
Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 20, 2025, 02:03 AMMeh, I don't know. Your avvy looks like he could assassinate the odd president.
Probably more likely to assassinate a king, no? :laughing:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/The_Burger_King_%282000s%29.jpg)
I always have to wonder: you know those annoying mobile phone games they keep throwing an ad for into any app you buy? How do kings get themselves trapped in bubbles and with things falling down on them and so on? I mean, just exactly what kind of security do these rulers have, and where are their bodyguards? I think an investigation is warranted!
(https://cdn6.aptoide.com/imgs/0/d/8/0d8ae120847cecb7fc82e695c4cdbfe8_fgraphic.jpg)
(https://is1-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Purple126/v4/4d/db/e9/4ddbe99e-70d8-9eef-7a9d-5649122ea783/86875a8c-f0df-440b-9672-6d72fb53fc33_ipad.jpg/643x0w.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/wNJKjQDg/dfde6b9a-6f3d-4a74-971a-0c8fdebdbce1.jpg)
The party of free speech, ladies and gentlemen
Trump orders a plan to dismantle the Education Department while keeping some core functions (https://apnews.com/article/trump-education-department-shutdown-b1d25a2e1bdcd24cfde8ad8b655b9843)
Core functions? Yeah, probably wants to keep the idea of an apple for teacher...
Trump Threatens to Deport the "Terrorists" Who Protest Tesla (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-threatens-deport-terrorists-protest-133755633.html)
Thread of Musk smearing trans people as the "violent terrorists" responsible (https://bsky.app/profile/zinniajones.com/post/3lkt6ovuqns2n)
I posted about this in my lgbt thread but I'm gonna post it here too. Trump and Musk are saying anyone, regardless of citizenship, can be trafficked into prison camps without due process if you are a protester, or dissenter, or have the wrong social media opinions, or are trans apparently.
I know some people don't like it when I make nazi germany comparisons but if you can't see how these Tesla protests could be used in the same way as the Reichstag fire, I feel like that's dangerously naive. They are saying their intentions out loud.
Edit:
https://bsky.app/profile/drharmony.bsky.social/post/3lktelvhaf32h (https://bsky.app/profile/drharmony.bsky.social/post/3lktelvhaf32h)
Welp looks like we have the new transphobic smear campaign folks. I guess they weren't satisfied with calling us mentally ill, bathroom rapists and child groomers, now we're also being called terrorists.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Mar 21, 2025, 04:23 PMI know some people don't like it when I make nazi germany comparisons but if you can't see how these Tesla protests could be used in the same way as the Reichstag fire, I feel like that's dangerously naive. They are saying their intentions out loud.
^ Yep, I think that comparison is becoming increasingly appropriate as the powers that the Trump/Musk admin carve out for themselves are growing more and more authoritarian in their scope.
The defense of democracy is getting increasingly tenuous (not to say desperate) imo. With the electorate, The Senate, the DOJ and I don't know who else having capitulated, media commentators are now talking about the judiciary as the last constraint on Trump. I wonder how that will go?
Supreme Court Justice JRoberts is now struggling with Trump's attacks on judges:-
QuoteJohn Roberts's message was clear: Threatening a federal judge with impeachment is not acceptable.
"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose," the statement read.
Roberts's remarks arrived within hours of Trump's own social media missive, wherein he blasted Judge James E Boasberg, who serves in the federal district court in Washington, DC.
"This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President," Trump wrote in a lengthy post that seemed to argue that presidential authority superseded judicial power. "He didn't WIN the popular VOTE."
Some media emphasise the extraordinary nature of a rebuke from the Supreme Court, but who are we kidding ? Roberts is way out of his depth, sparring with Trump's fiery texting. At least JR's published statement is better than an earlier draft that he actually sent to me to check over:-
"Dear Donald, I know I gave you access to more power than anyone in the US has ever held before, but please don't be nasty to my humble footsoldiers on the front line who I have betrayed by placing you above the law; it's going to make me look weak and stupid beyond belief. Your friend, Johnny Roberts."
Where does it say he's going to deport people for having the wrong social media opinions or for being trans?
My cousin's uncle friend told me, under threat of being black bagged, that the protest of Tesla is the first effective protest we've had in a long time.
Yeah, that's how to stand up to a dictator and speak truth to power! Teach the kids. ::) You're a fucking disgrace, Columbia U!
News Alert: Columbia University makes policy changes in dispute over federal funding
Columbia University has announced a series of new policies following President Trump's revocation of $400 million in federal funding over campus protests.
Among the changes are a review of admissions policies, making it easier to report harassment, tightening rules about the location of protests, prohibiting masks at protests, giving campus police new arrest powers and giving the office of the provost more authority to deal with disciplinary action against students involved in protests.
Does anyone see a China-like situation developing where the govt bans certain concerts/artists who criticise or speak out against them? Is it such a radical question? At this moment, given what's happening, I don't think so.
(https://media.tenor.com/Y2UbzhtUMqQAAAAM/nope-shaking-head.gif)
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 21, 2025, 08:30 PMWhere does it say he's going to deport people for having the wrong social media opinions or for being trans?
He doesn't have to say anything it's already happening.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 22, 2025, 08:47 AMHe doesn't have to say anything it's already happening.
Link to him deporting people for being trans or for posting opinions online.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 22, 2025, 12:18 PMLink to him deporting people for being trans or for posting opinions online.
Thought as much. Continue with your hyperbole thread then lol.
JJ, why are you insisting on being all but an apologist for Trump? The specifics of some things may not be happening, but read the fucking link! He's threatening not only to have people sentenced to TWENTY YEARS for vandalising/protesting at Tesla, but IS ALSO SAYING HE MIGHT DEPORT THEM TO SERVE THEIR TIME IN EL SALVADOR! Apart from this being the most heinous misuse of Executive Power possible (and probably completely illegal: can a person who is not a native of that country be sentenced to jail there by the US?) it shows a clear path this man is taking: that he'll do everything and anything he wants to consolidate his power and sow fear and terror throughout his country. I can't understand why you appear to be defending him all the time?
Perhaps you could make your position clear: do you support, even tacitly, the man and his policies, or are you just being a little too level-headed in a world that is slowly going very dark and very mad? Because this really is, as Lexi has said several times, something you have to take a position on. You can't sit on the fence (well, you can, but you shouldn't) - you either call the fucker out on his evil policies and hatemongering, or you don't. Curious to know where you stand.
Questioning if something is happening isn't defending him.
If this thread is just supposed to be a place where you can catastrophise about Nazis, the return of slavery and deporting people who fart then let us know. If it's actually for discussion then what's the issue?
The issue is that everything you say seems to be trying to downplay what's happening, and it saddens me because I didn't think you were that sort of person. You're free to make whatever comments you want here of course, but I have yet to see any post by you condemning what Trump and Musk are doing. If you don't condemn it, fair enough. I just want to know: am I dealing with someone who supports/would have voted for him, or not? Most people here have made their position clear enough (not sure about JWB) so it's not an invalid question: do you support what's happening in America, not care about it, or deplore it?
Well that is irrelevant really. You're not going to force me or attempt to bully me into anything.
You know how I vote in the UK (although I didn't vote on this past election as it was the last thing on my mind)o you can make an assumption based off that if you really want.
If you say Trump is going to chop the legs off everyone who voted Democrat and I question it, that isn't me downplaying anything.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 22, 2025, 05:31 PMThought as much. Continue with your hyperbole thread then lol.
You don't want discussion. I don't even know why you post on this thread. You are just trolling/sea lioning.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 22, 2025, 08:29 PMYou don't want discussion. I don't even know why you post on this thread. You are just trolling/sea lioning.
Yet if anyone strays from the constant hyperbole and fearmongering it's "Trump apologist" or "troll/sealioning". That's not a discussion. Also I very, very rarely post in here.
I asked where he said he was going to deport people for the wrong social media opinions and for being trans.
I could have just said it isn't happening but I asked a question. I'm going to assume it isn't happening because Lexi has now edited the post to remove that and reworded it.
If you want to have this thread where only certain views are allowed (bit Trumpian) then say that.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 22, 2025, 08:49 PMYet if anyone strays from the constant hyperbole and fearmongering it's "Trump apologist" or "troll/sealioning". That's not a discussion. Also I very, very rarely post in here.
I asked where he said he was going to deport people for the wrong social media opinions and for being trans.
I could have just said it isn't happening but I asked a question. I'm going to assume it isn't happening because Lexi has now edited the post to remove that and reworded it.
If you want to have this thread where only certain views are allowed (bit Trumpian) then say that.
She still said the same thing. It wasn't reworded. There are plenty examples, you just don't follow any US news to see it. You only come out to point contrainian opinions. You are basically a Trump supporter. Just like you said up there about a point being irrelevant. You don't honestly care about what's happening you just want to prove the opposite without seeing evidence.
Mahmoud Khalid got kidnapped away from his pregnant wife and sent to Louisiana from NY for being part of the pro Palestinian protests last year and now the media is trying to rebrand it and say he was part of pro Hamas protests which isn't true. Being pro Palestinian isn't the same as being pro Hamas which I'm not even going to get into that debate with you because I already know your position and you pretend to be obtuse about a nuanced discussion every single time.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/international-students-columbia-university-mahmoud-khalil
She's in ICE detention centers for being an activist, not even critical of Trump but there has been a running theme of activists being sent to Louisiana for being outspoken
https://chicagodefender.com/black-woman-activist-detained-by-ice-amid-trumps-mass-deportation-efforts/
Not a deportation but turned someone away just for having opinions against Trump
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/trump-musk-french-scientist-detained
Oh please, calling Jimmy a trump supporter is just as silly as calling me a zionist
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 22, 2025, 10:23 PMShe still said the same thing. It wasn't reworded.
No, it said deported. It now says "trafficked into prison camps".
That is a rewording. Deportation and trafficked into prison camps are not the same thing. And before you try and move the goalposts and ask if I'm justifying it or support that (because I know it's coming), no I don't. But that wasn't what was claimed.
QuoteThere are plenty examples, you just don't follow any US news to see it. You only come out to point contrainian opinions. You are basically a Trump supporter. Just like you said up there about a point being irrelevant. You don't honestly care about what's happening you just want to prove the opposite without seeing evidence.
Mahmoud Khalid got kidnapped away from his pregnant wife and sent to Louisiana from NY for being part of the pro Palestinian protests last year and now the media is trying to rebrand it and say he was part of pro Hamas protests which isn't true. Being pro Palestinian isn't the same as being pro Hamas which I'm not even going to get into that debate with you because I already know your position and you pretend to be obtuse about a nuanced discussion every single time.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/international-students-columbia-university-mahmoud-khalil
That's not a deportation. Also not trans. And I've never once said, implied or suggested that being pro-Palestinian is the same as being pro-Hamas because they aren't. You won't find it anywhere on here because it hasn't happened. You've completely made that up. Stop with the constant lying.
QuoteShe's in ICE detention centers for being an activist, not even critical of Trump but there has been a running theme of activists being sent to Louisiana for being outspoken
https://chicagodefender.com/black-woman-activist-detained-by-ice-amid-trumps-mass-deportation-efforts/
Not a deportation but turned someone away just for having opinions against Trump
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/trump-musk-french-scientist-detained
They're not deportations and they're not for being trans or for posting opinions online.
So yeah, hyperbole. Apt for the thread.
Quote from: Marie Monday on Mar 22, 2025, 10:31 PMOh please, calling Jimmy a trump supporter is just as silly as calling me a zionist
If it quacks like a duck then it's a duck
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 22, 2025, 10:59 PMNo, it said deported. It now says "trafficked into prison camps".
That is a rewording. Deportation and trafficked into prison camps are not the same thing. And before you try and move the goalposts and ask if I'm justifying it or support that (because I know it's coming), no I don't. But that wasn't what was claimed.
That's not a deportation. Also not trans. And I've never once said, implied or suggested that being pro-Palestinian is the same as being pro-Hamas because they aren't. You won't find it anywhere on here because it hasn't happened. You've completely made that up. Stop with the constant lying.
They're not deportations and they're not for being trans or for posting opinions online.
How is being placed in ICE detention centers not deportation? It's part of the process.
I don't have to lie about the pro Hamas/pro Palestinian comparison. You've said it out of your own mouth.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 22, 2025, 11:04 PMIf it quacks like a duck then it's a duck
that assumes you're capable of properly distinguishing quacking from other sounds, which you're not
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 22, 2025, 11:07 PMHow is being placed in ICE detention centers not deportation? It's part of the process.
I don't have to lie about the pro Hamas/pro Palestinian comparison. You've said it out of your own mouth.
How is going to court not the same as being sent to prison? It's part of the process.
No I haven't. I've never said they're the same thing whatsoever. I'd never say that. You are lying.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 22, 2025, 11:18 PMHow is going to court not the same as being sent to prison? It's part of the process.
No I haven't. I've never said they're the same thing whatsoever. I'd never say that. You are lying.
Being placed in ICE prison is not the same because there is no court process involved they completely skip over that.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 23, 2025, 12:15 AMBeing placed in ICE prison is not the same because there is no court process involved they completely skip over that.
I never mentioned ICE prison. I'm talking about any prison. Being placed in a detention centre isn't deportation, even if it is part of the process to being deported. Going to court is part of the process before you go to prison but just because you're in court it doesn't mean you're in prison. They're not the same.
And even if they were the same (which they aren't), none of the examples you gave were for "posting the wrong opinions or for being trans".
Are you going to show me where I said being pro-Palestinian is the same thing as being pro-Hamas or are you going to fail to provide evidence for that, too?
I did make my stance clear on Israel a while back:
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 08, 2024, 06:32 PMNot a lot really. I don't see how anyone can defend Israel. Plenty of footage of them targeting civilians and blowing them to bits as if it's GTA.
Does that sound like something someone would say if they thought being pro-Palestinian was the same as being pro-Hamas? Also shows your "you conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism" for the nonsense that was as well.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 23, 2025, 12:40 AMI never mentioned ICE prison. I'm talking about any prison. Being placed in a detention centre isn't deportation, even if it is part of the process to being deported. Going to court is part of the process before you go to prison but just because you're in court it doesn't mean you're in prison. They're not the same.
A core part of why this is a massive issue is because of the complete lack of due process going into people being scooped up and detained, not only within the US, but also people being sent from the US to international detainment sites like the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador. No judges, no lawyers, no trials.
Nothing. In many cases, we're also talking about potentially indefinite periods of detainment without any charges or trials. From what little has been found out about the people sent to CECOT, the only common thread is that they had tattoos with many having no evidence of gang affiliation or criminal records during their time in the US. This is the Executive branch and ICE acting unilaterally and completely side-stepping due process. Trump has made this possible through invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which was used in such lovely historical instances like Japanese Internment. The people being black bagged and sent off to detainment with no due process is not just limited to migrants, either. With the Trump admin expanding the already very loose title of "terrorist" to include campus protestors (ie. Mahmoud Khalil) and people who key a Tesla, you do the math...
JJ, this is worldwide news and there's ample sources posted around this forum. Go look for yourself since you seem averse to anyone here giving you information. If you're going to be so confident in your dismissive attitude, you should at least come to the table with a basic understanding of the topic.
You're not having the same discussion as me. I haven't argued that people haven't been detained, I haven't argued about due process or lack of, I haven't argued about lack of trials or lawyers or whatever else. Please don't try to change the discussion.
The discussion was about whether people are being deported for being trans or for posting opinions online. It wasn't about whether people are being detained for protesting. Have people been deported for those reasons I just mentioned, or has Trump said he will do that?
QuoteJJ, this is worldwide news and there's ample sources posted around this forum. Go look for yourself since you seem averse to anyone here giving you information. If you're going to be so confident in your dismissive attitude, you should at least come to the table with a basic understanding of the topic.
It isn't being dismissive to ask if something is going on, which somebody else said was, and then to ask for an example of it.
This is a friendly forum with a pretty small membership, so I hope we can all get along ok together even when discussing a contentious topic like the Trump/Musk admin.
I think it's fair enough for J Jazz to ask for evidence of a claim that's made, but I also am very sympathetic to those who do extrapolate from what's already happening on the ground to what could possibly be happening soon: it's something I do myself all the time when I look at the actions and directions that the current admin is taking.
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Mar 23, 2025, 01:23 AMA core part of why this is a massive issue is because of the complete lack of due process going into people being scooped up and detained, not only within the US, but also people being sent from the US to international detainment sites like the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador. No judges, no lawyers, no trials. Nothing. In many cases, we're also talking about potentially indefinite periods of detainment without any charges or trials. From what little has been found out about the people sent to CECOT, the only common thread is that they had tattoos with many having no evidence of gang affiliation or criminal records during their time in the US. This is the Executive branch and ICE acting unilaterally and completely side-stepping due process. Trump has made this possible through invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which was used in such lovely historical instances like Japanese Internment. The people being black bagged and sent off to detainment with no due process is not just limited to migrants, either. With the Trump admin expanding the already very loose title of "terrorist" to include campus protestors (ie. Mahmoud Khalil) and people who key a Tesla, you do the math...
^ Thanks for these factual details, Aurora.
This is my take on the recent debate here, and as usual it's an analogy - this time the tired old one about frogs slowly boiling to death in a saucepan. In this analogy, some of us frogs are saying "We're boiling to death!" while other frogs may reply, "No, no! The temperature is uncomfortably hot and rising, but let's not exaggerate." If those more precise-minded frogs are right, that would be great: some checks and balances will intervene, the stove will be turned off and our worst fears will be seen as hyperbole. Personally, I don't see that happening until the House/Senate/Presidency are in the hands of the Dems.
Finally, as regards this thread, its very title is an invitation to debate, so I hope everyone will continue to feel free to contribute to it without worrying that they are being squeezed out.
I'm still on my hiatus but I just wanted to clear some things up, just to get a bit of closure on this hopefully.
First off, yes, I edited "deported" to have a more generalized and broadly accurate wording. I wanted to cover those who are being deported and also those being detained in prison camps. I'm referring to both, and more specifically that people, including US citizens, are being taken and detained without due process, which, as Auroras pointed out, is a major factor in this matter.
My comment on trans people being part of that was a reference to Elon Musk implying that he is blaming trans people for the "violence" against Teslas. I meant to reference the links in my post as being something where you could easily connect the dots from that to Trump saying he would deport he "violent terrorists" who attacked the Teslas, and edited my post to provide the additional link that showed Nancy Mace also joining in on blaming trans people for the attacks (her tweet was also reposted by Musk). Trump/Musk/MAGA etc do not need to straight up say "we're going to deport trans people"; they're pretty clearly implying it by saying "deport the violent terrorists" and "trans people are violent terrorists". That was what I was referring to.
And as for the online opinions, I was referencing a couple things; one being the fact that a French politician's phone was searched when he was trying to enter the country, and he was denied entry due to anti-Trump posts he'd made. That combined with the fact that people involved in protests are also being singled out by Trump gave me the impression that this could easily lead to anti-Trump social media posts being factored in somehow at some point. But yes, that was more of a "thing to be concerned about" than "this happening right now".
And for the record I was not assuming that JJ is a Trump supporter.
I think that should be everything, I hope this clears things up. I'm going to try to go back to my hiatus now; I just checked the site briefly and saw there was some confusion going around.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 23, 2025, 01:35 AMYou're not having the same discussion as me. I haven't argued that people haven't been detained, I haven't argued about due process or lack of, I haven't argued about lack of trials or lawyers or whatever else. Please don't try to change the discussion.
The discussion was about whether people are being deported for being trans or for posting opinions online. It wasn't about whether people are being detained for protesting. Have people been deported for those reasons I just mentioned, or has Trump said he will do that?
I was responding to what I quoted. The processes through which this is all happening is actually incredibly important to what you're saying especially regarding what umbrellas the admin is using to sweep everything under. Nobody will be deported or detained for the
explicit reason that they are trans or whatever, it will all be twisted and shoehorned into "terrorism" or some other "threat to national security". The Alien Enemies Act was used to specifically detain Japanese Americans in WWII, but of course race was not stated directly stated as a reason (at least not at first) even though everyone knew why these people were
really being targeted. Context and nuance matters even for a question as directed and specific as yours because it can change the interpretation of what we're all watching unfold quite a bit. There's very good reasons for people to be extrapolating things as they are.
Anyhow, yes I believe Chameleon already linked an instance where a French researcher was booted out of the country for having anti-Trump posts online. Importantly, this was also justified as potential "terrorism". That's the through-line I wanted to highlight in my reply. Also, yes, an LGBTQ man was also scooped up and dumped in El Salvador. Not sure if they are trans or not, but it is what it is.
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2025/03/20/lgbtq-asylum-seeker-forcibly-removed-from-us-sent-to-el-salvador/
There's also cases of people being detained for weeks, transferred around to different facilities, and booted with no official reason given at all. Point being that
everything is already on the table for locking people up or sending them away.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/18/canadian-actor-jasmine-mooney-detained-mexico-border
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 23, 2025, 01:35 AMIt isn't being dismissive to ask if something is going on, which somebody else said was, and then to ask for an example of it.
I get that and that's not unfair at all, but I think the broader discussion going on is about a pretty clear and awful trajectory on which the Trump admin is moving along with things escalating very quickly. The bigger picture has become so clear that combing the sands for precise examples then using those to handwave away concerns over the whole thing if things don't match
exactly to those just rubs people wrong. Gotta see the forest for the trees and all that. What's also clear is that the few cases that people have been able to dredge up information on and get out into the media are just the tip of a very big iceberg that's growing faster than we can see it grow.
Side note for all: Still new to this long-standing community and getting to know the dynamics between people. I also have a tendency to come off spicier than I like to at times, but there's no disrespect intended. For online discussions, I'm pretty selective with what I engage with so even if we butt heads it's because I think you said something interesting and valuable.
Hyperbole vs pedantry, the never ending battle.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 23, 2025, 12:40 AMI did make my stance clear on Israel a while back:
Does that sound like something someone would say if they thought being pro-Palestinian was the same as being pro-Hamas? Also shows your "you conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism" for the nonsense that was as well.
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Mar 15, 2025, 04:16 PMThis Zionists thing is such a proxy for antisemitic hatred lol.
You parrot a lot of the same talking points as someone that believes that even if you didn't specifically say.
Talking heads say being anti Zionists is the same as being antisemitic and they also view pro Palestinian protestors as bring pro Hamas and pro terrorist. That's why they went after Maumould Khalid and took away his green card even though he's been living here in the states for years and is now in the process of being deported.
@Auroras In Ice so basically what we're talking about is, it hasn't actually happened nor have they said it will happen, but it might happen because the groundwork has been put in place and it's there to be used in a particular way. I am grateful that Lexi has now made it clear since I posted that she partly meant that. It is imo a bit of a stretch to just go from that to 'they're already deporting people' for posting the wrong opinions or for being trans.
I agree it is important to be aware of the bigger picture and where it could potentially lead but it is also important to be factual. 'Denying people entry for dubious reasons' would have been more accurate. And once again, no I'm not condoning any of this.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 23, 2025, 08:22 AMYou parrot a lot of the same talking points as someone that believes that even if you didn't specifically say.
You said I did specifically say it. From my "own mouth" were your exact words. Now you're backtracking. Are you going to accept that I didn't say it and drop it?
QuoteTalking heads say being anti Zionists is the same as being antisemitic and they also view pro Palestinian protestors as bring pro Hamas and pro terrorist. That's why they went after Maumould Khalid and took away his green card even though he's been living here in the states for years and is now in the process of being deported.
It doesn't matter what other people say.
Some people do conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism but it is also true that some people hide behind the "I'm just against Zionism" argument to mask their antisemitism. Both of these can be true at once. As it can also be true that you can criticise Israel and be against what they're doing without being antisemitic.
You lied. You knew full well I didn't say what you claimed.
Cheers to aurora for contributing so gracefully and patiently to the discussion, that was a good post. An example for us all, me included 👍
Quote from: Lucem Ferre on Mar 23, 2025, 06:43 AMHyperbole vs pedantry, the never ending battle.
Please bring back the old avatar. It was by far the best on SCD.
I remember David Icke talking about FEMA camps several years ago and thinking what on earth is he talking about? He was going on about camps being set up for those who would be deemed against the system. I was thinking, why would there be the need to set up camps to house people who are supposedly against the system in a democracy?
But we need to be aware of how the "Overton Window" or goalposts can move quite quickly.
David Icke, despite being a not bad goalie, is not Jesus either, so it's just his opinion versus everyone else's I guess.
I haven't heard that name in a while. Prompted me to look him up. "I am the son of the godhead". Seems pretty Jesus-like to me. Himself and RFK Jr. would make a formidable team. Edit to add, ICKE doesn't have a clue what the purpose of FEMA camps is.
'Chilling effect on free speech:' Trump wants green card applicants already legally in the US to hand over social media profiles (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-green-card-applicants-social-media-b2720180.html)
I don't want to say I told you so but...
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Mar 25, 2025, 02:11 AMI haven't heard that name in a while. Prompted me to look him up. "I am the son of the godhead". Seems pretty Jesus-like to me. Himself and RFK Jr. would make a formidable team. Edit to add, ICKE doesn't have a clue what the purpose of FEMA camps is.
I mean he's a professional pusher of conspiracy theories (often antisemitic ones as 99% of conspiracy theories are) who thinks world leaders are actually alien lizard people, so I'm not sure clues are particularly abundant in his head.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Mar 25, 2025, 09:27 AM'Chilling effect on free speech:' Trump wants green card applicants already legally in the US to hand over social media profiles (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-green-card-applicants-social-media-b2720180.html)
I don't want to say I told you so but...
My friend is so paranoid about this. She's a citizen but she's been scrubbing her social media and deleting most of it.
Me and DJ have been sorting out our differences on PM, and we are proud to announce he'll be coming to the UK where I'm going to buy him a few pints and some saltfish patties.
#FriendsAgain
Hopefully I don't get fucked with when I return but I should be okay. International travel is mad risky for certain Americans lately.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/18/germany-investigates-after-national-with-green-card-arrested-at-us-border
QuoteBerlin is investigating whether US immigration policy has changed, after a German national who is a permanent US resident was detained and "violently interrogated" by US border officials.
Fabian Schmidt, 34, is being held at a detention centre in Rhode Island after attempting to return to his home in New Hampshire after a trip to Luxembourg.
New Trump demand to colleges: Name protesters — and their nationalities (https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/03/25/trump-administration-campus-antisemitism-investigations/)
Trump fulfilling his daily racist shithead quota.
As a non practicing Jew I'm utterly mortified that this administration is committing such disgusting abuse and hiding behind the bold faced lie that they care about "fighting antisemitism". Anyone who buys that bullshit when this administration continues to employ the Nazi salute guy and embolden countless antisemitic white nationalists is deeply stupid at the absolute best.
Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 22, 2025, 06:11 PMThe issue is that everything you say seems to be trying to downplay what's happening, and it saddens me because I didn't think you were that sort of person. You're free to make whatever comments you want here of course, but I have yet to see any post by you condemning what Trump and Musk are doing. If you don't condemn it, fair enough. I just want to know: am I dealing with someone who supports/would have voted for him, or not? Most people here have made their position clear enough (not sure about JWB) so it's not an invalid question: do you support what's happening in America, not care about it, or deplore it?
which part have I not made clear?
I don't think there's likely to be a pending trans holocaust, but I do think democracy is on its last legs and that within 10 to 20 years (that's being conservative) I basically expect us to be living under an autocrasy that more closely resembles modern Russia than it does Nazi Germany. There's still a small part of me that hopes that's wrong. But every signal they send is pointing in that direction.
Out of everything they have done so far, rounding up random people who they say are illegal alien gang members with no due process and shipping them to a slave labor camp in a foreign country is definitely the most on the nose as far as the Nazi comparisons go.
In NY state they are trying to pass a mask ban but it has the same end goal of trying to oust protesters under the same lie you posted about, Lexi.
https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/buffalo/state-legislature-expected-to-consider-ban-on-face-masks-to-prevent-criminal-activity#:~:text=BUFFALO%2C%20NY%20(WKBW)%20%E2%80%94,their%20identities%20while%20committing%20crimes.
Who are you talking to?
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 25, 2025, 07:56 PMwhich part have I not made clear?
I don't think there's likely to be a pending trans holocaust, but I do think democracy is on its last legs and that within 10 to 20 years (that's being conservative) I basically expect us to be living under an autocrasy that more closely resembles modern Russia than it does Nazi Germany. There's still a small part of me that hopes that's wrong. But every signal they send is pointing in that direction.
Out of everything they have done so far, rounding up random people who they say are illegal alien gang members with no due process and shipping them to a slave labor camp in a foreign country is definitely the most on the nose as far as the Nazi comparisons go.
also, since I scrolled up and saw this whole thing started with Lexi saying some people don't like Nazi comparisons, let me be clear: I don't like
bad Nazi comparisons. Like for example thinking they're sending secret Nazi messages through the number given to an executive order, which are given out sequentially. Yet she's over here going "14! 88! I see a Nazi clue!" When all roads lead back to the third reich, as they clearly do for her, I start to think these types of Nazi comparisons just make the left look stupid.
Invoking a Nazi comparison for the recent videos of people being unloaded into a foreign labor camp would have indeed hit a lot harder than the kinds of shit I have actually responded to from Lexi or TH. Just so I'm clear.
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 25, 2025, 08:08 PMWho are you talking to?
Re read Lexi's post.
I just misunderstood your post. I see where that happened. You missed a comma before Lexi. So I read it as "the same lie you posted about Lexi" where as you were apparently trying to say "the same lie you posted about, Lexi." I forgive you.
If it were just the 1488 thing then sure. But they do these dogwhistles so frequently (not always specifically Nazi ones but white nationalist and antisemitic ones certainly) that it's not something I feel like I can just dismiss or downplay. We've established that you and I differ on what we think is is proper to call a Nazi comparison, and for the record I don't necessarily disagree with you. I have acknowledged that the comparisons I make aren't intended to be one to one. I've agreed with you that I don't think they're trying to re-establish the Third Reich. But I also don't think it's correct to say that they haven't been inspired by the actions, rhetoric and techniques of the Nazis. Not exclusively, I agree with your call on Russia for sure. And it's probably a fair point that I'm less studied on other authoritarian regimes than Nazi Germany, I fully admit this.
I call out Nazi shit: A. when it's obvious Nazi signaling. Maybe you're right on the 1488 thing, I saw a bunch of people saying that they timed the 'antisemitism' order deliberately to fall on a number including 14 and 88, but even without that they do the Nazi signals all the time and I can provide plenty more examples. And B. When I analogize parallels and point out historical patterns that line up with the descent into authoritarianism that occurred in Germany in the 1930s. I've never meant to imply that I think that's the only place and time where those patterns occurred and those parallels can be drawn. But fair enough, I could probably make more accurate comparisons if I were more knowledgeable on other authoritarian regimes.
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 25, 2025, 08:53 PMI just misunderstood your post. I see where that happened. You missed a comma before Lexi. So I read it as "the same lie you posted about Lexi" where as you were apparently trying to say "the same lie you posted about, Lexi." I forgive you.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/aP3wQgqxbPuXoYgNDM/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b9525syxwpnt2kjsomh3wfw0muud4iz8ya7nhw4yac9z&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=v)
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Mar 23, 2025, 05:28 PMPlease bring back the old avatar. It was by far the best on SCD.
I can't remember what it was, and it's been bugging me since you mentioned it.
Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 25, 2025, 10:41 PMI can't remember what it was, and it's been bugging me since you mentioned it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0QVFdD0t/Add-Text-03-25-04-08-19.png)
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Mar 23, 2025, 05:28 PMPlease bring back the old avatar. It was by far the best on SCD.
As you have mentioned avatars, please have an avatar. You look naked.
Ah yes of course. I agree.
I also agree with JJ: we frown on nakedness here. :laughing: Google is watching!
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Mar 25, 2025, 08:56 PMIf it were just the 1488 thing then sure. But they do these dogwhistles so frequently (not always specifically Nazi ones but white nationalist and antisemitic ones certainly) that it's not something I feel like I can just dismiss or downplay. We've established that you and I differ on what we think is is proper to call a Nazi comparison, and for the record I don't necessarily disagree with you. I have acknowledged that the comparisons I make aren't intended to be one to one. I've agreed with you that I don't think they're trying to re-establish the Third Reich. But I also don't think it's correct to say that they haven't been inspired by the actions, rhetoric and techniques of the Nazis. Not exclusively, I agree with your call on Russia for sure. And it's probably a fair point that I'm less studied on other authoritarian regimes than Nazi Germany, I fully admit this.
I call out Nazi shit: A. when it's obvious Nazi signaling. Maybe you're right on the 1488 thing, I saw a bunch of people saying that they timed the 'antisemitism' order deliberately to fall on a number including 14 and 88, but even without that they do the Nazi signals all the time and I can provide plenty more examples. And B. When I analogize parallels and point out historical patterns that line up with the descent into authoritarianism that occurred in Germany in the 1930s. I've never meant to imply that I think that's the only place and time where those patterns occurred and those parallels can be drawn. But fair enough, I could probably make more accurate comparisons if I were more knowledgeable on other authoritarian regimes.
Well, to be clear, I do think it's useful to have other authoritarian regimes or other historical examples to invoke, but it's not like I think that is going to save us from MAGA in any case. In order for an example to carry water, it has to be widely understood. The lack of historical depth in the thinking of your average voter isn't going to change regardless of how well you fine tune your analogy.
So at a certain point, invoking the Nazis to illustrate the dangers of falling down the path of authoritarianism is a perfectly valid analogy, even if you don't think the regime in question is as genocidal as the Nazis were. Unfortunately, that creates room for doubt in someone like for example Piers Morgan to come in and drill down on whether you actually believe that Trump is going to set up death camps because you referred to him as a fascist, or even because you made a Hitler comparison.
If the comparison in question is only in regard to how he managed to hijack German democracy, then it actually has no implication that you expect that because Trump is also trying to subvert democracy that means the next step after that is death camps. But that's the inference that many if not most people will unwittingly make.
I think in some ways the right is empowered both by being called nazis and also by people being reluctant to call them nazis. They have somehow managed to benefit from both responses. On the one hand, I'm convinced that when Elon does something like throw up a Nazi salute, part of the aim is to signal to the far right that they are normalizing that sort of thing, and the other part is to farm the outrage that will come from the left and paint them as the deranged ones for pointing out the obvious. So it's not like I think it's wrong to even call them nazis. But I think the sort of game they seem to be playing is worth being cognizant of. In many cases they seem to be setting traps to spur arguments that they hope the left stumbles on and in doing so helps them move the Overton window to the right.
In addition to that, I think that once you start looking for a specific pattern and trying to map everything on to that, it can blind you to nuances that don't neatly comport with your narrative. Like, for example, say they did actually time the EO to have secret Nazi references as a signal to the actual Nazis who support them, the last issue they would tie that to is an attempt to clamp down on criticism of Israel. Actual Nazis like Nick Fuentes hate how "cucked" the admin is to Israel. So the messaging there really wouldn't make sense.
In other words, a predetermined narrative about how they are nazis that you want to expose as such can blind you to the factions and nuance that exists among the MAGA coalition. It isn't only about being more accurate about historical examples. The real point is to know your enemy.
Quote from: Jwb on Mar 26, 2025, 02:01 AMWell, to be clear, I do think it's useful to have other authoritarian regimes or other historical examples to invoke, but it's not like I think that is going to save us from MAGA in any case. In order for an example to carry water, it has to be widely understood. The lack of historical depth in the thinking of your average voter isn't going to change regardless of how well you fine tune your analogy.
So at a certain point, invoking the Nazis to illustrate the dangers of falling down the path of authoritarianism is a perfectly valid analogy, even if you don't think the regime in question is as genocidal as the Nazis were. Unfortunately, that creates room for doubt in someone like for example Piers Morgan to come in and drill down on whether you actually believe that Trump is going to set up death camps because you referred to him as a fascist, or even because you made a Hitler comparison.
If the comparison in question is only in regard to how he managed to hijack German democracy, then it actually has no implication that you expect that because Trump is also trying to subvert democracy that means the next step after that is death camps. But that's the inference that many if not most people will unwittingly make.
I think in some ways the right is empowered both by being called nazis and also by people being reluctant to call them nazis. They have somehow managed to benefit from both responses. On the one hand, I'm convinced that when Elon does something like throw up a Nazi salute, part of the aim is to signal to the far right that they are normalizing that sort of thing, and the other part is to farm the outrage that will come from the left and paint them as the deranged ones for pointing out the obvious. So it's not like I think it's wrong to even call them nazis. But I think the sort of game they seem to be playing is worth being cognizant of. In many cases they seem to be setting traps to spur arguments that they hope the left stumbles on and in doing so helps them move the Overton window to the right.
In addition to that, I think that once you start looking for a specific pattern and trying to map everything on to that, it can blind you to nuances that don't neatly comport with your narrative. Like, for example, say they did actually time the EO to have secret Nazi references as a signal to the actual Nazis who support them, the last issue they would tie that to is an attempt to clamp down on criticism of Israel. Actual Nazis like Nick Fuentes hate how "cucked" the admin is to Israel. So the messaging there really wouldn't make sense.
In other words, a predetermined narrative about how they are nazis that you want to expose as such can blind you to the factions and nuance that exists among the MAGA coalition. It isn't only about being more accurate about historical examples. The real point is to know your enemy.
Valid points. Part of my eagerness to call out the Nazi dogwhistles is definitely rooted in my own sort of shock response, like I feel sometimes like I'm taking crazy pills that people are doing this stuff so brazenly and visibly at the highest level of government on the most widespread media platforms. And me posting on here calling them out is like my way of reaching out to others to affirm that I'm not crazy, that this shit just isn't normal. And I see your point that doing that makes me look like I'm taking their outrage bait. I'm really more just still stunned that all of this is the political reality currently, to be honest.
But i definitely understand and generally agree with your points and i appreciate you going in depth about it.
Anyone else enjoying the fiasco of the Attack Plans Group Chat ?
I said a while ago that one difference between the Nazis and the Trump admin is that the Nazis, in power, valued experience and knowledge, and hired people accordingly. The Trump admin hires loyalists and celebs without relevant expertise, and the consequence of that hiring policy is demonstrated by this latest blunder.
Caught off-guard, even the Trump admin's go-to policy of deny and deflect is failing them: Hesgeth's denial that any classified info was in the chat has only led to more damning content details being released by The Atlantic, (who had been commendably holding back some info until Hesgeth effectively gave them his "nothing classified" permission to release it).
And Helsgeth's other ploy, to denegrate journalist Jason Goldberg has only led to people shouting louder, "
...then why was he in the chat ?!?"
QuoteThe information Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth disclosed in the Signal chat were highly classified at the time he wrote it, especially because the operation had not even started yet, according to a US defense official familiar with the operation and another source who was briefed on it afterward.
"It is safe to say that anybody in uniform would be court-martialed for this," the official added. "We don't provide that level of information on unclassified systems, in order to protect the lives and safety of the service members carrying out these strikes. If we did, it would be wholly irresponsible. My most junior analysts know not to do this."
In light of the bolded, it'll be interesting to see if that idea of justice is carried over to the Trump admin in any way. Will anybody involved be chucked out, I wonder ?
Hopefully this is the first sign of voter resistance. Special elections in two separate districts...
QuoteIn Pennsylvania, Democratic state Senate candidate James Malone won over Republican Josh Parsons on Tuesday by less than a single percentage point in Lancaster County, a largely GOP-held agricultural region west of Philadelphia. Donald Trump carried the district by 15 points not even five months ago. (Democrats also won a Pennsylvania House seat in Allegheny County that handed them a one-vote majority in the statehouse.)
Elections in Florida and Wisconsin up next.
Yeah, I know it's something (better that nothing), but "less than a percentage point" is hardly a ringing denouncement of the Republicans, is it? More a shrug than a fist in the air.
I'm going to be voting in the election here in Wisco. At least I will be if this garbage doesn't go into effect.
https://apnews.com/article/voting-elections-trump-executive-order-4e9edb53f47e61e241a43ceef8164022 (https://apnews.com/article/voting-elections-trump-executive-order-4e9edb53f47e61e241a43ceef8164022)
Quote from: Trollheart on Mar 26, 2025, 07:09 PMYeah, I know it's something (better that nothing), but "less than a percentage point" is hardly a ringing denouncement of the Republicans, is it? More a shrug than a fist in the air.
It's a 16 point swing. In 5 months, that's significant.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3llclkqz7rc2o (https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3llclkqz7rc2o)
I'm going to fucking barf
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Mar 26, 2025, 11:13 PMhttps://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3llclkqz7rc2o (https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3llclkqz7rc2o)
I'm going to fucking barf
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/H7jAZip9RWQr6/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952vbvqd7wi7xk8uttsosdpmuz2t265xzjm89ehshg7&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
First he says his admin is off to a better start than Washington's, and now he says he is the "Fertilization President"? Everyone knows John Tyler is the "Fertilization President". He had 15 kids, and still has one living grandson today (https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/29842/president-john-tylers-grandsons-are-still-alive). Also, Tyler accomplished it with only two wives, while Trump has had three, so no excuses. If there were any John Tyler fans, they'd be very upset about this. :laughing:
Quote from: SGR on Mar 26, 2025, 11:56 PM(https://media2.giphy.com/media/H7jAZip9RWQr6/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952vbvqd7wi7xk8uttsosdpmuz2t265xzjm89ehshg7&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
First he says his admin is off to a better start than Washington's, and now he says he is the "Fertilization President"? Everyone knows John Tyler is the "Fertilization President". He had 15 kids, and still has one living grandson today (https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/29842/president-john-tylers-grandsons-are-still-alive). Also, Tyler accomplished it with only two wives, while Trump has had three, so no excuses. If there were any John Tyler fans, they'd be very upset about this. :laughing:
Oh he's the fertilization president alright, in that he's full of horseshit. :laughing:
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 26, 2025, 04:04 PMAnyone else enjoying the fiasco of the Attack Plans Group Chat ?
I said a while ago that one difference between the Nazis and the Trump admin is that the Nazis, in power, valued experience and knowledge, and hired people accordingly. The Trump admin hires loyalists and celebs without relevant expertise, and the consequence of that hiring policy is demonstrated by this latest blunder.
Caught off-guard, even the Trump admin's go-to policy of deny and deflect is failing them: Hesgeth's denial that any classified info was in the chat has only led to more damning content details being released by The Atlantic, (who had been commendably holding back some info until Hesgeth effectively gave them his "nothing classified" permission to release it).
And Helsgeth's other ploy, to denegrate journalist Jason Goldberg has only led to people shouting louder, "...then why was he in the chat ?!?"
In light of the bolded, it'll be interesting to see if that idea of justice is carried over to the Trump admin in any way. Will anybody involved be chucked out, I wonder ?
Yeah Lisna, I don't know exactly how this one will shake out. It's definitely a huge opsec failure. I've never used the Signal app myself, so I'm somewhat curious how Jeffrey Goldberg was 'mistakenly' added to the chat. It's also quite funny, because if Trump had his choice of any journalist to be 'mistakenly' added to a chat like this, Goldberg would probably be at the absolute bottom of the list. :laughing:
They've had (or are having) hearings about it. I haven't quite caught up with all of that. But one thing I did notice is that beyond the fact that a complete opsec failure was exposed, there isn't much to add on to the scandal. In other words, if the operation went haywire because of this, or someone(s) got hurt due to the poor security adherence, it would be a much bigger scandal. To your question of justice, my guess is that whoever added Goldberg (and we're in the 'fog of war' info phase, but it sounds like it might've been a staffer for Waltz) to the chat will get axed. I'd be surprised if it really resulted in higher heads rolling like Waltz himself or Hegseth, even though many Dems are calling for that. Again though, 'fog of war', we're still getting info about this - if something directly incriminates either of them in this mistake, it could be possible - but at this point, I'd doubt it.
I also feel like the story doesn't have natural oxygen to sustain it beyond a weekly news cycle or two (at least in the public's interest, legal cases might play out longer)- beyond the opsec failure, there's only a few illuminating tidbits in the chats I've seen (tell me if you think there is something I've missed). What does seem to be clear is that Trump's admin, based on the chat, has the same resentment towards Europe in private that they present in public. The only other interesting tidbit to me seemed to be that JD Vance seemed completely comfortable defying or at least questioning/opposing the strike on Yemen that Trump supported - in some sense, it's probably a good thing that the admin is comfortable defying Trump in private. Beyond that though, there are news stories about emojis that the chatters used, and if we're talking about emojis, then that's a signal that there's not a lot of juicier drama or internal conflict to ply from:
Trump team sparks fury with 'sickening' choice of emojis while describing their war plans in leaked Signal chat (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14534113/Trump-team-fury-sickening-emojis-war-plans-leaked-Signal-chat.html)All that being said, Trump promised a government of transparency, didn't he? I just don't think this was what anyone had in mind. :laughing:
Next move: mysterious fire/bomb/outbreak of virus at the headquarters of The Atlantic...
To add someone to a Signal chat it is very intentional.
I use Signal during protests because of the disappearing messages but you need the person's phone number and you see the name of the person when they are added to the group chat. I think the slight mix up was that the journalist had his Signal name as JG and they meant to add someone else with the same initials. So when they saw JG was added to the chat they thought it was someone else but you have to put in the number of the person so it still doesn't excuse the mix up.
Quote from: DJChameleon on Mar 27, 2025, 04:05 AMTo add someone to a Signal chat it is very intentional.
I use Signal during protests because of the disappearing messages but you need the person's phone number and you see the name of the person when they are added to the group chat. I think the slight mix up was that the journalist had his Signal name as JG and they meant to add someone else with the same initials. So when they saw JG was added to the chat they thought it was someone else but you have to put in the number of the person so it still doesn't excuse the mix up.
Thanks for the firsthand info DJ. Yeah, I'm guessing we'll learn a bit more about how it happened in the coming days/weeks (or at least we'll be sold a story about 'how it happened')
Quote from: SGR on Mar 27, 2025, 12:23 AM...but one thing I did notice is that beyond the fact that a complete opsec failure was exposed, there isn't much to add on to the scandal. In other words, if the operation went haywire because of this, or someone(s) got hurt due to the poor security adherence, it would be a much bigger scandal. To your question of justice, my guess is that whoever added Goldberg (and we're in the 'fog of war' info phase, but it sounds like it might've been a staffer for Waltz) to the chat will get axed. I'd be surprised if it really resulted in higher heads rolling like Waltz himself or Hegseth, even though many Dems are calling for that.
Yep, that's my guess too, SGR: Waltz will blame some assistant and that guy will carry the can for everyone else.
QuoteI also feel like the story doesn't have natural oxygen to sustain it beyond a weekly news cycle or two (at least in the public's interest, legal cases might play out longer)- beyond the opsec failure, there's only a few illuminating tidbits in the chats I've seen (tell me if you think there is something I've missed). ...
Beyond that though, there are news stories about emojis that the chatters used, and if we're talking about emojis, then that's a signal that there's not a lot of juicier drama or internal conflict to ply from:
Trump team sparks fury with 'sickening' choice of emojis while describing their war plans in leaked Signal chat (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14534113/Trump-team-fury-sickening-emojis-war-plans-leaked-Signal-chat.html)
^ Yes, the poor-taste emojis isn't much of a story in itself: it's just a little media add-on really, isn't it?
If there is something you missed, then I don't think it's in the original Signal messages or in the initial blunder: it's in the way that so many White House officials are denying what we can all see for ourselves. We now have on-record lies from Hesgeth and various others, and that process will extend the story for some time, I suspect:-
journalist asks about the information exposed in chat > politician lies about it > more headlines or ridicule > rinse and repeat
Also worth considering in this context is the response from other nations to this breach of security, especially from Europe. Their reactions might extend this story furthur because I bet they won't be taking the White House line of "oh, no damage done."
And actually, mentioning the word "ridicule" gives me an excuse to show Stephen Colbert's spot-on comments from last night:-
QuoteAll that being said, Trump promised a government of transparency, didn't he? I just don't think this was what anyone had in mind. :laughing:
:laughing: Good one, SGR ! With remarks like that you could become a writer for S Colbert - or perhaps help press sec Karoline Leavitt make herself look like even more of a clown than she already is.
@Lisnaholic remember James Carville's "play possum" (do nothing, let Republicans flounder, then pounce) strategy? Well, I think it's this sort of thing that he was talking about/waiting for (he's probably released comments or a video about this whole thing, but I haven't seen it yet). Democrats should try to get as much juice out of this as they can politically. I'm just not sure how long the juice will last - that was my main point with the "illuminating" stuff in the chats. To your point, Hegseth and others downplaying or lying about whether or not the discussed subjects were 'classified' or not might fuel the news cycle a little bit more and result in some legal proceedings, but I don't think that sort of thing is out of the ordinary for a US administration caught in a scandal. If, for example, the chats showed one or more admin officials privately bashing or ridiculing Trump, or the operation resulted in the loss of American life because of this ham-fisted handling of operational security, the longevity of this scandal would probably be much greater, and in either of those cases, my guess would be that high-level heads would roll. Obviously, admin officials lying/downplaying would look
much worse if they were doing it about something that resulted in the loss of American life, rather than a haphazard breach of opsec that resulted in an American journalist getting an enviable scoop.
We'll see how it plays out I suppose. I think one thing that's clear, and that the Democrats will vocalize, is that Republicans would have raked Democrats over the coals for something like this had their positions been reversed. But my guess is that the interest in the story among Democrats will exceed the interest in the story among the public. As seemingly the first true scandal in the second Trump administration, it is novel, but I would be surprised if it's still being widely reported on in two weeks time.
(https://i.ibb.co/QjvxcsxK/fc8a81ed-2ec5-4f13-9bf4-5abbbd70d678.jpg)
Surprise surprise, "the party of free speech" was another lie.
(https://i.ibb.co/KcJBYz7j/IMG-1107.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/1YD3C2tg/IMG-1108.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/6JRSNJkx/IMG-1109.jpg)
This is terrifying Orwellian-ass shit. And they're also pretty much saying the quiet part out loud by saying one of the "divisive narratives that distort our shared history" is "race is not a biological reality but a social construct." Race science and white supremacy are now national policy.
Trump Pulls Research Funding To Protect Pregnant Women From Domestic Violence, Citing 'DEI' (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-admin-pulls-research-funding-protection-pregnant-women-domestic-violence_n_67e5bbf0e4b0e9fab0ffb1cc?rqn)
MAGA hates women and minorities
The Trump administration is racist and want other countries to be racist too (https://bsky.app/profile/chriso-wiki.bsky.social/post/3lljcuuyx322u)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/26/yale-professor-fascism-canada
QuoteWhat does it say that a scholar of fascism is leaving the US right now? Said Stanley: "Part of it is you're leaving because ultimately, it is like leaving Germany in 1932, 33, 34. There's resonance: my grandmother left Berlin with my father in 1939. So it's a family tradition."
At what point do all the people who rolled their eyes at me in 2016 admit that I was right?
You can't turn your back for a second...
You might expect this from the Taliban...
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2025/03/28/trump-aims-to-remove-improper-ideology-from-the-smithsonian-with-new-executive-order?utm_source=The+Art+Newspaper+Newsletters&utm_campaign=96f2fd3714-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_02_14_10_55_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-2f1faeda6a-62240358 (https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2025/03/28/trump-aims-to-remove-improper-ideology-from-the-smithsonian-with-new-executive-order?utm_source=The+Art+Newspaper+Newsletters&utm_campaign=96f2fd3714-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_02_14_10_55_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-2f1faeda6a-62240358)
If you were wondering why Trevor Milton (Who?) got a pardon...
https://electrek.co/2025/03/28/trevor-milton-claims-hes-been-pardoned-but-really-its-just-an-ad-for-a-documentary/?utm_source=Electrek+Daily+Email+Subscribers&utm_campaign=da70857073-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_03_28_11_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_76e57fe13e-da70857073-220818432#more-408198 (https://electrek.co/2025/03/28/trevor-milton-claims-hes-been-pardoned-but-really-its-just-an-ad-for-a-documentary/?utm_source=Electrek+Daily+Email+Subscribers&utm_campaign=da70857073-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_03_28_11_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_76e57fe13e-da70857073-220818432#more-408198)
https://apnews.com/article/nikola-trevor-milton-fraud-trump-pardon-3fcebb0a3820cecb205656f2dc3f6764 (https://apnews.com/article/nikola-trevor-milton-fraud-trump-pardon-3fcebb0a3820cecb205656f2dc3f6764)
Quote from: SGR on Mar 27, 2025, 11:05 PM@Lisnaholic remember James Carville's "play possum" (do nothing, let Republicans flounder, then pounce) strategy? Well, I think it's this sort of thing that he was talking about/waiting for (he's probably released comments or a video about this whole thing, but I haven't seen it yet). Democrats should try to get as much juice out of this as they can politically. I'm just not sure how long the juice will last - that was my main point with the "illuminating" stuff in the chats. To your point, Hegseth and others downplaying or lying about whether or not the discussed subjects were 'classified' or not might fuel the news cycle a little bit more and result in some legal proceedings, but I don't think that sort of thing is out of the ordinary for a US administration caught in a scandal. If, for example, the chats showed one or more admin officials privately bashing or ridiculing Trump, or the operation resulted in the loss of American life because of this ham-fisted handling of operational security, the longevity of this scandal would probably be much greater, and in either of those cases, my guess would be that high-level heads would roll. Obviously, admin officials lying/downplaying would look much worse if they were doing it about something that resulted in the loss of American life, rather than a haphazard breach of opsec that resulted in an American journalist getting an enviable scoop.
Yes, I don't think this a scandal that'll bring down bring down a government, but also, as a breach of opsec, I rank it as "emblematic" or "indicative" rather than "haphazard", as you are labelling it. The inclusion of a journalist in the chat could, charitably, be written off as a random blunder, but the chat being in Signal in the first place is a total red flag of the admin's attitude, "Why's everyone bleating about national security all the time?"
QuoteWe'll see how it plays out I suppose. I think one thing that's clear, and that the Democrats will vocalize, is that Republicans would have raked Democrats over the coals for something like this had their positions been reversed. But my guess is that the interest in the story among Democrats will exceed the interest in the story among the public. As seemingly the first true scandal in the second Trump administration, it is novel, but I would be surprised if it's still being widely reported on in two weeks time.
^ I think your scandalometer is giving you false readings, SGR. First big scandal in my eyes was Trump placing Musk (unelected, unconfirmed by Congress and apparently unanswerable to anyone) in such a position of power. From that point on, there has been a scandal on an almost daily basis as he takes his quasi-legal chainsaw to one govt. department after another. If you think Signalgate is "the first true scandal" of this admin, you may be revealing how effective Bannon's "flood the zone" policy is as a method of getting people to swallow what was unthinkable during any previous presidency.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Mar 28, 2025, 03:11 PMThis is terrifying Orwellian-ass shit. And they're also pretty much saying the quiet part out loud by saying one of the "divisive narratives that distort our shared history" is "race is not a biological reality but a social construct." Race science and white supremacy are now national policy.
Quote from: Lexi Darling on Mar 28, 2025, 03:11 PMMAGA hates women and minorities
Quote from: Buck_Mulligan on Mar 30, 2025, 06:10 PMYou can't turn your back for a second...
You might expect this from the Taliban...
Yep, it's just one sinister development after another: some of them happening before our eyes, and some of them getting language or precedent on the books so that regulations can be called up and used as and when required. Aside from people who are specifically being targeted, there must be a terrible "chilling effect" now being felt by universities, media outlets, lawyers, federal employees, dissenters, minorities etc, etc.
One quick measure of how extreme some of the Trump admin's actions have become:-
Back in the long run up from the Big Lie of Sept 2020, through Jan 6 2021, to the Nov 2024 election, Trump apologists in the media and Congress had a go-to response, "Yeah, but the Dems did something similar..." It seems to me that those guys have now largely fallen silent, which I'm guessing is because the Trump admin is so outstripping any kind of precedent.
So this clip may be one of the last "yeah, but the Dems..." speeches we'll be hearing for a while.
(1 min of the Attorny General's speech, then commentary from Brian Taylor Cohen):-
It's just relentless awfulness, isn't it? Very much by design as a shock and awe strategy to overwhelm opposition since this is the window to actually interfere with this stuff taking root. Once it does root in, it's going to take a lot more struggle to get rid of it. Hard way it is, I guess. Anyhow, this is a lot to have happened just over just a couple months. Anyone who is even slightly clued in and still shrugging off the severity of this and denying the obvious trajectory it's all moving on is kinda on the same level as Flat Earthers to me. At this point there's either personal denialism or other factors at play that is well-beyond any rando on the internet to break through. The architect of Project 2025 saying this is all "beyond my wildest dreams" (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/16/project-2025-paul-dans-qa-00228890) is... concerning.
Aside from various historical parallels which we can pick over until the cows come home, the direction of this is into uncharted territory. In pretty much all modern instances of fascism and authoritarianism, it's emerged in nations that were truly on the ropes. Think of the devastated state of post WWI Germany that gave rise to Nazism as a means to restore national pride after humiliating defeats and imposition of severe austerity measures. This echoes across more recent authoritarian movements in Europe, Africa, and Asia... not to mention S.American dictatorships engineered and propped up through destabilization by the CIA and other western powers. The huge inflection point with the US is that it's the world's richest nation, the only superpower, and is at the seat of a global hegemony. Trumpism is still using the rhetoric of restoring the US to some former glory ("make america great again"), but the national humiliation and ruin it is reacting to exists pretty much as that... rhetoric. Neoliberalism is wrecking the US middle and working classes to enrich the few, but that's also happening everywhere. It is a brutal situation for many, but nothing compared to the socioeconomic conditions that previous authoritarian movements have emerged from. What fascism in a rich superpower with the capacity to wipe everything out many times over will look like versus historical examples coming from nations in tatters is anyone's guess. It's a wildly different starting point. Just a navel-gazing thought I wanted to put out and interested in other's thoughts on it.
You make a good point,
@Auroras In Ice : it's like the school bully suddenly won the lottery, so now he has the power and the means to do whatever he wants, hire and fire who he wants, and nobody can stop him. It's pretty terrifying stuff. The whole world is about to slide into a recession, apparently, so perhaps when American voters start feeling it in their pocket, when their houses are being repossessed and their jobs are being lost, they might wake up and try to do something, though in all likelihood the only real path to any sort of action (other than outright revolution/civil war - yeah) is hitting back at the midterms, and that's two years away. Going to be, as they say, a long cold winter.
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 31, 2025, 01:13 AMYes, I don't think this a scandal that'll bring down bring down a government, but also, as a breach of opsec, I rank it as "emblematic" or "indicative" rather than "haphazard", as you are labelling it. The inclusion of a journalist in the chat could, charitably, be written off as a random blunder, but the chat being in Signal in the first place is a total red flag of the admin's attitude, "Why's everyone bleating about national security all the time?"
One of the interesting things to me, based on more reading I've done and what DJ said, is that this 'mistake' would be difficult to make. And as of now, as far as I'm aware, though Mike Waltz seemingly has taken responsibility for it, it's still not clear who actually added Jeffrey Goldberg. It's almost a mini-scandal in itself that we don't know
But I did ask you earlier what you found to be illuminating in the chat - there's one thing that's gone somewhat unsaid, and that's the dog that isn't barking. The strikes on the Houthis in Yemen. I think we can glean from this, based on the domestic response, that Democrats and Republicans alike are totally fine with Trump's admin bombing and killing them, but are upset at the opsec breach and the platform they used to discuss doing the bombings/killings. This seems to me to be part and parcel of the 2001 Bush-authorized AUMF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001#Use_by_the_U.S._government). This shit has gone on since Bush, across every subsequent administration, essentially allowing the executive branch to bomb countries and people on a whim, without notifying congress or requiring input from public representatives.
There were no US troops in immediate danger, and thus, this was not an act of self-defense. JD Vance, in the chat, voiced his desire to delay the strikes and spend time doing the public messaging to inform the public why this matters (but then conceded he'd go along with the consensus). This would necessary imply that the Trump admin had plenty of time to at least publicly notify Congress, but that wasn't done, and instead it was bombs away - my understanding is that without clear urgency, the AUMF can't really be invoked - but the AUMF has become such a catch-all get-out-jail-free card, that executive policy has often become: "Bomb first, ask questions later".
Based on some of what I've read, this is to protect international shipping lanes - but these lanes account for somewhere around 3% of US shipping traffic; they're used much more frequently and are much more important to both Europe, Asia and Israel (surprise, surprise) [this is a little bit of an oversimplification, admittedly, to make a point - there are many things being shipped to Europe through here that subsequently become manufactured goods that are then shipped to the US]. If Trump wants to be the 'America First' guy, why are we essentially subsidizing Europe and Israel? Doesn't seem very 'America First' to me. Waltz admitted in the Signal chats that European navies aren't even prepared to defend against the military technology that the Houthis are using (bankrolled by Iran). And yet Trump and his admin have repeatedly called and urged for Europe to beef up its own defense spending and rely less on the US, but if they can continue to rely on Uncle Sam to take care of issues like this, they'll obviously feel less compelled to do so. But anyways, the Democrats haven't really made any hay of this issue, because it's more or less a direct continuation of what the Biden admin was already doing in Yemen with the Houthis. And it's what the Democrats presumably would be doing now if they controlled the government.
I'm not saying specifically that it was wrong in this instance to take the military action that they did - I obviously don't know for sure, nor do I have some clear and obvious alternative that would solve the problem - but what I am certain of is that it represents another instance in a decades-long pattern of executive overreach with the AUMF as their go-to justification and excuse. And despite the obvious mishandling of the opsec re: Signal, it feels like that should at least be part of the discussion/dialogue (especially since children are dying in these bombings). As this story has gotten a lot of press coverage, I'm guessing the majority of Americans who pay attention to the news could tell you a basic version of why this is a scandal, but I'd highly doubt that any more than 5 - 10% of them could provide you with a good explanation for why the US is bombing the Houthis in the first place.
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Mar 31, 2025, 01:13 AM^ I think your scandalometer is giving you false readings, SGR. First big scandal in my eyes was Trump placing Musk (unelected, unconfirmed by Congress and apparently unanswerable to anyone) in such a position of power. From that point on, there has been a scandal on an almost daily basis as he takes his quasi-legal chainsaw to one govt. department after another. If you think Signalgate is "the first true scandal" of this admin, you may be revealing how effective Bannon's "flood the zone" policy is as a method of getting people to swallow what was unthinkable during any previous presidency.
To your point Lisna, I suppose it depends on how we define and qualify a 'scandal'. Much of this stuff that Trump has been doing is largely things he said he'd do, or hinted at doing in various terms, on the campaign trail (https://archive.ph/1UdHK), including having Elon direct government cost-cutting measures - so much so, he brought him along to speak at many campaign rallies. I've heard it repeated ad nauseam that Elon is 'unelected'. While that is true, it's not like his eventual role or motivations were some kind of big mystery that voters only found out about after Trump won the election. The other thing is that there have been many, many unelected (and unconfirmed by congress) people who had major influence on the executive branch and the president throughout US history. Some examples:
- Andrew Jackson's 'kitchen cabinet (https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110331/documents/HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD951.pdf)'
- Sherman Adams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Adams#White_House_Chief_of_Staff) (Eisenhower Administration)
- Valerie Jarrett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Jarrett#Advisor_to_Barack_Obama) (Obama Administration)
- Henry Kissinger (Nixon Administration) - originally serving as unelected National Security Advisor
and perhaps my personal favorite, in terms of mystery and mystique:
- "Colonel" Edward M. House (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._House#Adviser_to_Wilson) (Wilson Administration)
So I think the whole 'nobody elected Elon!' schtick is mostly a Democrat soundbite - I can't say that it hasn't worked/been effective though, given how often it's been repeated, but when you start to dig past the surface, that baseline criticism doesn't really hold up in the sense that this isn't historically unique or unprecedented. What is unique is being the richest man in the world and being in charge of directing where the government should make cuts - and the more understandable concerns that Elon doesn't have the country's best interests in mind, but rather his own (and his various companies).
Back to the scandal (or 'scandals'), I certainly wouldn't claim that many of the things Trump and his admin have done/are doing are not controversal or haven't drawn much criticism, but most of these things are being done fairly out in the open and not by mistake. In other words, despite the controversy, they're mostly seemingly intentional, even if said actions ultimately find rebukes from judges/courts. This whole fiasco with Signal and the attack plans though was most certainly not done intentionally, and the exposure of this error to the public is what more tightly situates it as a concrete plain-as-day scandal in my eyes. From your perspective though, I think there's merit to the 'flood the zone' strategy causing a serious shifting of the goalpost for what even constitutes a scandal in the eyes of the public with the Trump administration. For example, if we went back 30 years, there's no way Bill Clinton would be crazy enough to say he's looking into ways to serve a third term and also considering the possibility of using the military to retake the Panama Canal. If he did ever say it, it would be in private. If one of those conversations had gotten leaked, it definitely would've been a scandal - but Trump says that kind of stuff out in the open, and for him and his admin, that's just a Tuesday. If Trump says something/does something that for presidents in the past would've been a big scandal, but for Trump, gets maybe 5 - 10 minutes of air time on late night comedy shows couched with jokes and jabs, is it even truly a scandal any more in the eyes of the public? Perhaps this is cynical, but Trump and his controversies in my opinion are sort of like a drug addiction for the public - in the sense that we eventually get dulled to the high, and we're left chasing that first high again - to get close though, we need bigger and bigger doses, otherwise it just leaves us with a dissatisfied and disappointing numbness.
Quote from: Auroras In Ice on Mar 31, 2025, 03:58 PMIt's just relentless awfulness, isn't it? Very much by design as a shock and awe strategy to overwhelm opposition since this is the window to actually interfere with this stuff taking root. Once it does root in, it's going to take a lot more struggle to get rid of it. Hard way it is, I guess. Anyhow, this is a lot to have happened just over just a couple months. Anyone who is even slightly clued in and still shrugging off the severity of this and denying the obvious trajectory it's all moving on is kinda on the same level as Flat Earthers to me. At this point there's either personal denialism or other factors at play that is well-beyond any rando on the internet to break through. The architect of Project 2025 saying this is all "beyond my wildest dreams" (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/16/project-2025-paul-dans-qa-00228890) is... concerning.
Aside from various historical parallels which we can pick over until the cows come home, the direction of this is into uncharted territory. In pretty much all modern instances of fascism and authoritarianism, it's emerged in nations that were truly on the ropes. Think of the devastated state of post WWI Germany that gave rise to Nazism as a means to restore national pride after humiliating defeats and imposition of severe austerity measures. This echoes across more recent authoritarian movements in Europe, Africa, and Asia... not to mention S.American dictatorships engineered and propped up through destabilization by the CIA and other western powers. The huge inflection point with the US is that it's the world's richest nation, the only superpower, and is at the seat of a global hegemony. Trumpism is still using the rhetoric of restoring the US to some former glory ("make america great again"), but the national humiliation and ruin it is reacting to exists pretty much as that... rhetoric. Neoliberalism is wrecking the US middle and working classes to enrich the few, but that's also happening everywhere. It is a brutal situation for many, but nothing compared to the socioeconomic conditions that previous authoritarian movements have emerged from. What fascism in a rich superpower with the capacity to wipe everything out many times over will look like versus historical examples coming from nations in tatters is anyone's guess. It's a wildly different starting point. Just a navel-gazing thought I wanted to put out and interested in other's thoughts on it.
It's an interesting question because the key difference in my eyes betwen modern America and Weimar Germany is in fact not how rich we are but how entrenched our institutions are. In the Weimar Republic, 'Democracy' made for an easy scapegoat because it was fairly new and was associated with the chaos, both political and economic, that characterized the situation in Germany at the time.
There were multiple attempted revolts and numerous political assassinations during the short history of Weimar democracy, so I guess with that in mind it seems much less surprising that the nazis would rise to power.
The Nazis never actually pretended to believe in democracy, and there were many Germans at the time who might not have been nazis but similarly longed for something like a return to monarchy and putting and end to the chaos and humiliation associated with the new order.
The situation in the states could not be more different, in this regard. The institutions aren't some new experiment that we were basically forced to embrace after a recent and humiliating defeat in a war, they are a long standing and evolving tradition that is firmly entrenched both in how political power is distributed and in how political thought is formulated and conceptualized in the US.
And what is the provoking incident? What is it that has actually changed that made it possible? It seems like the main issue is more the merging of politics and entertainment, the changing media environment and the shattering of the so called overton window.
The idea of somehow 'managing the bounds of acceptable discourse' through a hand full of massive media corporations and their decisions over which conversations to host and how to frame them seems rather antiquated at this point. For a long time, the fringe voices were just denied the platform to try to make their case. On the internet, even a relatively small niche of people with a specific interest is still large enough for someone to cash in on catering to them.
And so now the basic premises of our society that have been taken for granted for decades are once more up for debate. And in an information environment that instead of trying to put up guard rails, will find what interests you most and feed you more of that.
I know it's not exactly a hot take to just blame the internet and social media but... I think that is the most obvious and drastic change over the last 10-20 years that makes the current dynamic seem possible where it previously wouldn't have.
Thank you for your long reply, SGR, which, if you don't mind I'm not going to answer point by point, though I would say this:-
i) on the Signalgate breach: US foreign policy regarding the Houthi's isn't particularly relevant imo.
ii)
QuoteBack to the scandal (or 'scandals'), I certainly wouldn't claim that many of the things Trump and his admin have done/are doing are not controversal or haven't drawn much criticism, but most of these things are being done fairly out in the open and not by mistake. In other words, despite the controversy, they're mostly seemingly intentional, even if said actions ultimately find rebukes from judges/courts. This whole fiasco with Signal and the attack plans though was most certainly not done intentionally, and the exposure of this error to the public is what more tightly situates it as a concrete plain-as-day scandal in my eyes.
^ I don't think your division of in-secret/accidental vs. in-the-open/intentional is a very useful way to grade scandals: what purpose does the distinction serve other than to allow a bunch of Trump/Musk scandals to be relegated to some lesser league in your perceived scale of scandals?
(iii) 'nobody elected Elon!' is not a schtick, it's a fact, regulary repeated by aghast Dems and hood-winked Trumpers alike.
(iv) When I said that the debating point of "...
but what about what the Dems did.." is beginning to disappear, that was not a plea for you to dig up some precedents. Congrats on finding cases from the Andrew Jackson era, but forgive me for not following you on that particular historical journey. So it's true that Musk is not the first special appointment in US history, but comparisons with Valerie Jarratt don't really reduce the scandal of Musk's impact and lack of accountability. The scandals of unfair dismissals, forced entry of govt buildings and seizing of data are in the news every day, SGR. I am more persuaded by the real human damage that Musk is doing than whether there's an Andrew Jackson parallel or not.
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 01, 2025, 04:57 AMThank you for your long reply, SGR, which, if you don't mind I'm not going to answer point by point, though I would say this:-
i) on the Signalgate breach: US foreign policy regarding the Houthi's isn't particularly relevant imo.
I agree it's not relevant to the focus and crux of the scandal (opsec breach/discussing attack plans on Signal) in any strict sense, and that was kind of the point; nothing in these chat logs will be strictly relevant to the primary scandal - we were discussing what we could find in the chats themselves that were illuminating in regards to other points of discussion/the mindset of the administration/etc - the only reason we can do so is because this scandal happened and the chats that were not meant to be public were exposed.
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 01, 2025, 04:57 AMii)
^ I don't think your division of in-secret/accidental vs. in-the-open/intentional is a very useful way to grade scandals: what purpose does the distinction serve other than to allow a bunch of Trump/Musk scandals to be relegated to some lesser league in your perceived scale of scandals?
Perhaps it isn't that useful when applied universally, just one way to look at it - as I'm sure you know, most 'scandals' in US presidential history historically have not been something that's done right in front of everyone's eyes, and then trumpeted by the administration as a great success (e.g. Teapot Dome, Iran-Contra Affair, Watergate, Monica Lewinsky, etc). Do you think there's nothing that provides any meaningful distinction between 'Signalgate' and the 'almost daily scandals' you referred to earlier?
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 01, 2025, 04:57 AM(iii) 'nobody elected Elon!' is not a schtick, it's a fact, regulary repeated by aghast Dems and hood-winked Trumpers alike.
I told you that I agree that it's a fact. But you claimed that it was the first big scandal of Trump's second administration, largely because he was 'unelected and unconfirmed by congress'. Because you claimed it was a big scandal for those reasons, I provided multiple examples from the past of other 'unelected and unconfirmed by congress' figures who had very massive influence on presidential politics, foreign policy, and domestic policy. Like I said, I don't think the 'he wasn't elected' thing is the real criticism from Democrats, it's the fact that he's the richest man in the world and is seemingly in charge of directing cuts, with obviously dubious motives. So in other words, 'nobody elected Elon!' is a talking point...or a schtick. Like I said though, I think it does largely work, because many Americans don't have a grasp of that historical context, so it puts the deeper criticisms in a more digestible (if more inaccurate) form.
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Apr 01, 2025, 04:57 AM(iv) When I said that the debating point of "...but what about what the Dems did.." is beginning to disappear, that was not a plea for you to dig up some precedents. Congrats on finding cases from the Andrew Jackson era, but forgive me for not following you on that particular historical journey. So it's true that Musk is not the first special appointment in US history, but comparisons with Valerie Jarratt don't really reduce the scandal of Musk's impact and lack of accountability. The scandals of unfair dismissals, forced entry of govt buildings and seizing of data are in the news every day, SGR. I am more persuaded by the real human damage that Musk is doing than whether there's an Andrew Jackson parallel or not.
Lisna, respectfully, I didn't even respond to that part of your post. :laughing: I didn't need a 'plea' from anyone to present something I thought was interesting and could add some useful historical context to the discussions we're having. And furthermore, I don't know why you're running defense for Democrats here, I included both Republican and Democratic administrations in my examples - and I can dig up many more examples from both parties. The point is that this kind of thing is not unique or unprecedented - and that being 'unelected, unconfirmed by congress' alone is not some big unprecedented scandal. The criticisms towards Musk, I think, would be better suited to be focused on his actions (as you're referring to) than whether or not he was 'elected'. There's plenty of cases to be made there, and material to work with. That being said, I must take umbrage at how you're obviously sarcastically trying to minimize and belittle my point by focusing on the oldest example I presented and 'congratulating' me for finding it, even if it did give me a chuckle. ;)
I'll 100% say that bombing the Houthis is wrong.
The Houthis put an embargo on Israel to stop the genocide.
The embargo is doing actual damage to put pressure on Israel.
When the ceasefire happened the Houthis stopped attacking ships headed to Israel.
When Israel broke the ceasefire, the Houthis started back up.
We're bombing Yemen because the Houthis dared to take action to try and prevent genocide.
And these are a people who have been victims of their own genocide at the hands of a Saudi coalition government backed by the US.
I don't agree that the "embargo" has in any way been effective in putting pressure on Israel, but I also don't think that bombing the Houthis to try to get them to stop is going to work. So I also think this was wrong. But given that we are the ones facilitating the Genocide in Gaza, this is not that drastic of a departure from Biden's foreign policy, rhetoric aside. Though in theory it could be the beginning of a larger escalation, I would tend to think not. Who knows.
That being said,
@SGR does have a point that Signalgate is the first big scandal in terms of something that they were exposed for rather than something they proudly advertised. And because it deals with national security, it's hard for the Republicans to play this one down, try as they might. But in terms of actual substance I still think disappearing people with no due process into a foreign prison should not be the kind of thing they can just advertise openly and get half of the population to unquestionably run with. But that's where we are. So the full on frontal assault on the checks and balances and on the concept of rule of law is not a scandal in this country, because it's inhabited by fat mouth breathing retards who are too stupid to understand the use of having due process for people who they assume are guilty. Shame.
I'm going to just go ahead and say it. Americans deserve to be put into FEMA camps.
It caused one of Israel's most important ports to go bankrupt so it definitely is putting economic pressure on Israel whether you agree or not.
Sure, fair point. They are putting pressure on Israel economically, I just meant that pressure isn't remotely effective at hampering the Israeli war effort or bringing them closer to the negotiating table, and the effects are also not necessarily concentrated on Israel. The same blockade that bankrupted that port also helped exacerbate the risk of famine in Sudan. So I think the net result is they just add to the suffering in the world, not detract from it.
If anything, Hezbollah was applying more pressure than anyone was, by directly displacing 60 or 70 thousand Israelis. But we saw what happened to them, and now with Assad gone, Israel is going to have free reign over Syrian airspace and Iran is within striking distance of the Israeli airforce.
I don't think it'd stop Israel either. If the embargo is having that negative of an impact on Sudan then I'm against it.
But still against the US bombing Yemen.
As always, SGR, you are very calm and balanced in your responses to my somewhat scattershot posts. On this occasion:-
Quote from: SGR on Apr 01, 2025, 06:05 AMI agree it's not relevant to the focus and crux of the scandal (opsec breach/discussing attack plans on Signal) in any strict sense, and that was kind of the point; nothing in these chat logs will be strictly relevant to the primary scandal - we were discussing what we could find in the chats themselves that were illuminating in regards to other points of discussion/the mindset of the administration/etc - the only reason we can do so is because this scandal happened and the chats that were not meant to be public were exposed.
^ Well, perhaps you were discussing that, but I never was, :laughing:: I was just revelling in the embarrassment that such a blunder was causing to chalatans like Hesgeth.
QuotePerhaps it isn't that useful when applied universally, just one way to look at it - as I'm sure you know, most 'scandals' in US presidential history historically have not been something that's done right in front of everyone's eyes, and then trumpeted by the administration as a great success (e.g. Teapot Dome, Iran-Contra Affair, Watergate, Monica Lewinsky, etc). Do you think there's nothing that provides any meaningful distinction between 'Signalgate' and the 'almost daily scandals' you referred to earlier?
I told you that I agree that it's a fact. But you claimed that it was the first big scandal of Trump's second administration, largely because he was 'unelected and unconfirmed by congress'. Because you claimed it was a big scandal for those reasons, I provided multiple examples from the past of other 'unelected and unconfirmed by congress' figures who had very massive influence on presidential politics, foreign policy, and domestic policy. Like I said, I don't think the 'he wasn't elected' thing is the real criticism from Democrats, it's the fact that he's the richest man in the world and is seemingly in charge of directing cuts, with obviously dubious motives. So in other words, 'nobody elected Elon!' is a talking point...or a schtick. Like I said though, I think it does largely work, because many Americans don't have a grasp of that historical context, so it puts the deeper criticisms in a more digestible (if more inaccurate) form.
Lisna, respectfully, I didn't even respond to that part of your post. :laughing: I didn't need a 'plea' from anyone to present something I thought was interesting and could add some useful historical context to the discussions we're having. And furthermore, I don't know why you're running defense for Democrats here, I included both Republican and Democratic administrations in my examples - and I can dig up many more examples from both parties. The point is that this kind of thing is not unique or unprecedented - and that being 'unelected, unconfirmed by congress' alone is not some big unprecedented scandal. The criticisms towards Musk, I think, would be better suited to be focused on his actions (as you're referring to) than whether or not he was 'elected'. There's plenty of cases to be made there, and material to work with. That being said, I must take umbrage at how you're obviously sarcastically trying to minimize and belittle my point by focusing on the oldest example I presented and 'congratulating' me for finding it, even if it did give me a chuckle. ;)
You make various valid points, SGR, and have taught me to be very careful about using the word "unprecedented". My apologies if you think it unfair that I picked out your oldest precedent to have a little laugh at your expense, but in a way it illustrates a point:-
As I hope you know, I've enjoyed our long-running debates in the political threads here: you have always been extremely fair, patient and polite throughout, but I now feel that, with the rapid changes taking place in the US today, our debates are increasingly beside the point.
A recent commentator said that Trump is doing to US democracy in a matter of months what Erdoguan did over a period of 10 years to Turkey. Legit media companies are being blocked from White House press events. The AG, and by implication the DoJ, is now a tool of Trump, as can be seen from that partisan speech by Pam Bondi that I posted recently. Trump is calling for judges to be impeached if they rule against his wishes. People are being deported without due process. Trump is threatening to take over Canada and Greenland, and thousands of US citizens are losing jobs, benefits, etc, etc.
In light of that, I really don't have any appetite to talk about the niceties of precedents, or how scandals can be sub-divided into types, etc.
Sorry.
Quote from: Lisnaholic on Today at 07:09 PMAs always, SGR, you are very calm and balanced in your responses to my somewhat scattershot posts. On this occasion:-
^ Well, perhaps you were discussing that, but I never was, :laughing:: I was just revelling in the embarrassment that such a blunder was causing to chalatans like Hesgeth.
You make various valid points, SGR, and have taught me to be very careful about using the word "unprecedented". My apologies if you think it unfair that I picked out your oldest precedent to have a little laugh at your expense, but in a way it illustrates a point:-
As I hope you know, I've enjoyed our long-running debates in the political threads here: you have always been extremely fair, patient and polite throughout, but I now feel that, with the rapid changes taking place in the US today, our debates are increasingly beside the point.
A recent commentator said that Trump is doing to US democracy in a matter of months what Erdoguan did over a period of 10 years to Turkey. Legit media companies are being blocked from White House press events. The AG, and by implication the DoJ, is now a tool of Trump, as can be seen from that partisan speech by Pam Bondi that I posted recently. Trump is calling for judges to be impeached if they rule against his wishes. People are being deported without due process. Trump is threatening to take over Canada and Greenland, and thousands of US citizens are losing jobs, benefits, etc, etc.
In light of that, I really don't have any appetite to talk about the niceties of precedents, or how scandals can be sub-divided into types, etc.
Sorry.
Thanks for the kind words my friend, right back at you. :)
There's obviously a level of pedantry to many of our debates/discussions which we're both certainly guilty of engaging in, e.g. "I don't agree with this characterization", "that doesn't seem like the right word to use here", "this makes it sound like you're downplaying this, while this makes it sound like you're overstating that", etc. I don't mind debates/discussions on pedantic details; sometimes it leads to a more thoughtful and considered exchange of ideas - but yes, at other times it can simply wear on one's patience and desire to continue specific discussions. I totally get that. :laughing:
If this 'Signalgate' scandal topic has somewhat been exhausted, there are other recent/looming topics of discussion, in addition to the many issues you mentioned.
Today is what Trump calls 'Liberation Day', and by the sounds of it, there will be some level of new tarrifs announced (https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-tariffs-trade-war-stock-market-04-02-2025) - he'll be speaking about it at 4pm today while markets wait anxiously.
Yesterday, Susan Crawford won the WI State Supreme Court race (https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-elon-musk-81f71cdda271827ae281a77072a26bad), keeping a liberal majority in control, despite the tens of millions of dollars Elon Musk sunk into the race for her opponent Brad Schimel. People seemed to have various takeaways from this, all of which could be true, e.g. Elon Musk's involvement was actually toxic, and more than helping Brad Schimel, increased turnout for his opponent - and also, without Trump on the ticket, many of his supporters simply don't get out to vote (which would spell trouble for Republicans in the midterms, as it did in the 2018 midterms where we noticed a similar pattern). My understanding of why this race was so important is that one of the issues the WI Supreme Court will be dealing with is redistricting - which many are saying will give Democrats a serious electoral advantage in the state to the point that it could cost Republicans control of the house.
Quote from: Jwb on Apr 01, 2025, 05:27 PMThat being said, @SGR does have a point that Signalgate is the first big scandal in terms of something that they were exposed for rather than something they proudly advertised. And because it deals with national security, it's hard for the Republicans to play this one down, try as they might. But in terms of actual substance I still think disappearing people with no due process into a foreign prison should not be the kind of thing they can just advertise openly and get half of the population to unquestionably run with. But that's where we are. So the full on frontal assault on the checks and balances and on the concept of rule of law is not a scandal in this country, because it's inhabited by fat mouth breathing retards who are too stupid to understand the use of having due process for people who they assume are guilty. Shame.
I'm going to just go ahead and say it. Americans deserve to be put into FEMA camps.
Total tangent, but the bolded along with the rest of your post reminded me of this Killing Joke track. :laughing:
QuoteIt's time of unrest and your rights are suspended
There's a list going round and it's likely you are on it
The names on the blue list are picked up later
And the red list goes to the incinerator
We'll never end up in the furnace of a (FEMA camp)
Burning in the fiery furnace of a (FEMA camp)
Speaking of Musk and White House drama:
Trump Tells Inner Circle That Musk Will Leave Soon (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/04/02/trump-musk-leaving-political-liability-00265784)
It doesn't really go into what this means, if anything, for the future of DOGE. Will it quietly just go away - or will someone else be appointed to lead it?
Edit: Or maybe not - press secretary claims the report isn't true - guess we'll see:
https://x.com/PressSec/status/1907476290438901863
This could be a game of semantics (war plans vs. attack plans anyone?) - 'stepping back' from his advisory role (Politico) does not equal 'departing' (WH).