Unless this has changed since I read it Donny has signed an executive order to say that some branches should listen to him as he interprets the law not the courts.
Am watching the judicial process regarding the deportation of alleged gang members to the El Salvador mega prison under the War Powers Act of 1798. Under the War Powers Act a president has the power to detain or deport enemy aliens during the time of a declared war. But there is no declared war against a country. Trump administration say we are in effect in a war against gangs. and the courts should stay out of it.
Two other cases worthy of watching is the executive order regarding birthrights citizenship, and the impoundment of federal funds authorized by Congress.
I think Trump will ultimately lose these three cases. If he does, then what?
Absolutely incredible, even for Trump appointees. It underscores how Trump appoints people who have no idea what they're doing, even (or especially) for the highest positions.
Perhaps by happenstance, the Trump administration announced recently that it was cracking down on leaks. Tulsi Gabbard is supposed to be leading this effort. Conveniently The Atlantic has provided her with some primo leads on possible leakers, including Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, and . . . uh, Tulsi Gabbard. That's got to be awkward.
Seriously, there is so much wrong here. The most obvious is why use a commercial chat service when taxpayer funded SCIFs are available? The obvious answer is to evade public records laws. "Waltz set some of the messages in the Signal group to disappear after one week, and some after four."
We can't even be surprised anymore, we're that heartsick.
If there isn't some serious, strong leadership from the opposition, and pronto, American democracy and the rule of law are finished. And I'm just not seeing anything strong enough. Bernie and AOC are barnstorming around the country on a "stop oligarchy" tour, and I had to hunt for reporting about it.
I sometimes think that it's a problem with the democrats that we've always been a coalition party with a lot of idealists carrying very high expectations. And trying to lead a party like that as a single person is very dangerous because, as president, you are going to deeply disappoint people on things they care deeply about.
I could think particular factions or causes to glare at, but it's water under the bridge now and the main thing for us to do is get along and keep the coalition together. A leader would be nice. I think AOC is stepping up. God have mercy on her.
Mike Waltz (Trump's National Security Advisor and allegedly the one who invited The Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a top secret military planning group chat) has now floated the theory that Goldberg somehow hacked his way into their Signal group chat. What amazes me is that Waltz seems to regard "a civilian news organization was able to hack into the unsecure commercial platform I decided to use for discussing top secret war stuff" to less blameworthy/incriminating than "I accidentally invited a journalist to our discussion of top secret war stuff".
Maybe it is true what they say; the coverup is worse (in the sense of being even more stupid) than the crime.
AOC is into Modern Mobetary Thery (I am not), Tax the Rich and public ownership iof enterprises (I'm not really a fan). I am a social program and trade union leftie.
By an amazing/unfortunate coincidence, today was a scheduled briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee on national security threats. In attendance were Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, FBI Director Kash Patel, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, all of whom were on the Signal group chat. Guess what they got asked about? Mostly the witnesses tried to switch off between "nothing classified was discussed in the group chat" and "I can't discuss that, it's classified", desperately trying desperately to shift the blame to others. Pete Hegseth and Mike Waltz, not being present for this hearing, seem to have been favorite targets for shifted blame.
Donnie does not wake up until around noon. Most of his actions happen in the late afternoon. Yesterday was one such day. In the late afternoon when it released the Executive Order on preserving and protecting the integrity of American elections.
Three problems, as I see it.
First, it takes the power to control the elections from the state to the federal executive branch.
Second, it limits the use of mail in ballots to just people unable to go to established polling places--in modern society people just do not have the time to stand for long hours at polling establishments. It also demands all ballots have to be received on the day of the election--no more late ballots coming in late which will be a challenge with the pending changes to the mail service.
Third, it severely restricts voter registration to either a passport or a REAL ID (which is the new id required by Congress showing the citizenship of the bearer). Many people do not have a passport and it takes time to convert to the REAL ID.
A number of states attorneys and the ACLU have said they will take this to court.
AOC is into Modern Mobetary Thery (I am not), Tax the Rich and public ownership iof enterprises (I'm not really a fan). I am a social program and trade union leftie.
I've always thought that "tax the rich" kinda went hand-in-glove with social programs and, at least until the early 1980s, public ownership.
As for "Modern Mobetary Theory"(great typo, btw), my understanding is it's something along the lines "It doesn't matter how much the government spends because they can always print more." IOW kind of the goldbug's caricature of how fiat currency works, but treated as a valid policy.
Third, it severely restricts voter registration to either a passport or a REAL ID (which is the new id required by Congress showing the citizenship of the bearer). Many people do not have a passport and it takes time to convert to the REAL ID.
An additional problem is that it disadvantages anyone who has had a recent name change. Updating your name on official documents is a pain and a complication. I can't believe it's entirely coincidental that this factor will affect women a lot more than men, given traditional customs about name changing upon marriage.
Given that there is typically not any way to acquire a passport or REAL ID without paying some kind of fee for it I'm not sure how this avoids violating the Twenty-Fourth Amendment's prohibitions on poll taxes* in federal elections.
*Cross-Pond translation: In the U.S. a poll tax is a tax or fee charged by the state as a requirement for voting in an election, not a per capita tax as the term is often used in the U.K.
AOC is into Modern Mobetary Thery (I am not), Tax the Rich and public ownership iof enterprises (I'm not really a fan). I am a social program and trade union leftie.
As for "Modern Mobetary Theory"(great typo, btw), my understanding is it's something along the lines "It doesn't matter how much the government spends because they can always print more."
Not quite. It's (as I understand it) more the modelling of money as being effectively created by government spending and destroyed by taxation, the upshot of which is that budget deficits for countries that control their own currency are not relevant, all that matters is whether the money being "destroyed" is enough to offset any excessive inflationary effect from spending. It's a sensible response to balanced budget fetishism.
I just said an elected American politician is more left wing than I am. Those words don't even TASTE right.
As a far leftie American--I would endorse every leftie idea I've heard from AOC though I will admit I haven't read about her economic theory, now I will have to--I find this comforting. People from around the world are always telling us they're more liberal than we are and AOC is expressing positions I've had for years. So it's nice to hear that some of us on the wildly far left of the US are indeed not on the right (as opposed to left) side of world politics. May as well have something to sop my feelings as I'm certainly not likely to get anything I want from our current government!
In the late afternoon when it released the Executive Order on preserving and protecting the integrity of American elections.
Three problems, as I see it.
First, it takes the power to control the elections from the state to the federal executive branch.
Second, it limits the use of mail in ballots to just people unable to go to established polling places . . . .
Third, it severely restricts voter registration to either a passport or a REAL ID (which is the new id required by Congress showing the citizenship of the bearer). . . .
I think it’s more accurate to say it purports to do these things.
Purports, yes. It CAN'T do these things, because you need a fucking Constitutional amendment to take powers away from the states and arrogate them to the federal government. This thing might do for toilet paper...
The fuckwits responsible presumably think they can get away with their infamies...
Or they’re throwing everything they can think of at the wall to see what will stick, figuring that it keeps the base happy and provides moving targets for the detractors. They know some of it won’t stick, but in the meantime, there’s more chaos.
The fuckwits responsible presumably think they can get away with their infamies...
Or they’re throwing everything they can think of at the wall to see what will stick, figuring that it keeps the base happy and provides moving targets for the detractors. They know some of it won’t stick, but in the meantime, there’s more chaos.
Yes, fair comment. From this side of the Pond, chaos seems to be the operative word...
I sometimes think that it's a problem with the democrats that we've always been a coalition party with a lot of idealists carrying very high expectations. And trying to lead a party like that as a single person is very dangerous because, as president, you are going to deeply disappoint people on things they care deeply about.
I could think particular factions or causes to glare at, but it's water under the bridge now and the main thing for us to do is get along and keep the coalition together. A leader would be nice. I think AOC is stepping up. God have mercy on her.
To quote Will Rogers: "I belong to no organized party; I am a Democrat"
My personal theory is that liberals are always at a disadvantage compared to conservatives because pretty much by definition, liberals will generally have a wide range of visions about how things could or should be and that can make it difficult to get wide-spread agreement and focus. Conservatives, on the other hand, can more easily unite around a more narrow vision that things should go back to how they used to be.
I see the Canadian Brewing Company Moosehead is offering a 1,461 can pack of Presidential Beer. That's one can for every day remaining in Trump's tenure. Cost is S3,490 Canadian. It is being sold in three provinces. Tempting to cross the border and smuggle one of those packs across the line. I can just image having to keep a straight face when the Border Guard ask, "Are you bringing any alcohol in from Canada?" Story here
I did inadvertently take some American beer over into Canada once. I had forgotten to declare it until Mrs, Gramps asked me about it a couple of hours into our Canadian trip
My personal theory is that liberals are always at a disadvantage compared to conservatives because pretty much by definition, liberals will generally have a wide range of visions about how things could or should be and that can make it difficult to get wide-spread agreement and focus. Conservatives, on the other hand, can more easily unite around a more narrow vision that things should go back to how they used to be.
The new regime is not at all conservative. It's radical.
My personal theory is that liberals are always at a disadvantage compared to conservatives because pretty much by definition, liberals will generally have a wide range of visions about how things could or should be and that can make it difficult to get wide-spread agreement and focus. Conservatives, on the other hand, can more easily unite around a more narrow vision that things should go back to how they used to be.
The new regime is not at all conservative. It's radical.
Exactly so. Nothing whatsoever that is good is being conserved. It is all about destruction. Remember trump's campaign line? "Vote Democrat and you will lose your country!"
I sometimes think that it's a problem with the democrats that we've always been a coalition party with a lot of idealists carrying very high expectations. And trying to lead a party like that as a single person is very dangerous because, as president, you are going to deeply disappoint people on things they care deeply about.
I could think particular factions or causes to glare at, but it's water under the bridge now and the main thing for us to do is get along and keep the coalition together. A leader would be nice. I think AOC is stepping up. God have mercy on her.
To quote Will Rogers: "I belong to no organized party; I am a Democrat"
My personal theory is that liberals are always at a disadvantage compared to conservatives because pretty much by definition, liberals will generally have a wide range of visions about how things could or should be and that can make it difficult to get wide-spread agreement and focus. Conservatives, on the other hand, can more easily unite around a more narrow vision that things should go back to how they used to be.
Well, there are some definite fault-lines between eg...
...Dr. Thomas Szasz, the right-wing libertarian whose The Manufacture Of Madness championed the persecuted witches as early practioners of free-market medicine against the proto-socialist church and its monopoly on healing, AND...
...paranoid mega-churchers in rural Kentucky who wanna home-school their kids to protect them from the satanic influence of Narnia.
Granted, both the hipster-libertarian and the home-schooler would agree(for different reasons) that parents should seize power over education from the state, and that's usually enough to keep most of both factions in the same tent, though I'm pretty sure the Libertarian Party fatally spoils the vote for Republicans now and then.
I agree with all of the responses to my post, but I still maintain that my theory explains some of the basic dynamics that led to conservative groups being able to put Trump in power. Trump isn't a conservative, but he found it easier to co-opt the conservative movement than the liberal movement.
My personal theory is that liberals are always at a disadvantage compared to conservatives because pretty much by definition, liberals will generally have a wide range of visions about how things could or should be and that can make it difficult to get wide-spread agreement and focus. Conservatives, on the other hand, can more easily unite around a more narrow vision that things should go back to how they used to be.
The new regime is not at all conservative. It's radical.
Exactly so. Nothing whatsoever that is good is being conserved. It is all about destruction. Remember trump's campaign line? "Vote Democrat and you will lose your country!"
I don't think the definition of "conservative" has as a sine qua non the idea that a given person would agree that something good is being conserved. Marie Antoinette, Francisco Franco, George Wallace, and PW Botha were all conservative, but none of us would think they conserved anything that merited survival.
As for Trump, yeah, he's destroying existing institutions, but it's often in the name of impeding or even reversing the liberalization of laws and mores, and returning to those of about 100 years ago. Well within the parameters of conservatism, I'd say.
(Though I'll admit that if we accept the definition of fascism as right-wing policies masquerading behind a sense of revolutionary excitement, MAGA probably qualifies. I'd still call it conservative, though.)
As for Trump, yeah, he's destroying existing institutions, but it's often in the name of impeding or even reversing the liberalization of laws and mores, and returning to those of about 100 years ago. Well within the parameters of conservatism, I'd say.
(Though I'll admit that if we accept the definition of fascism as right-wing policies masquerading behind a sense of revolutionary excitement, MAGA probably qualifies. I'd still call it conservative, though.)
"In the name of" and "In actuality" are quite different in this case. Yes his message may be conservative, but his method most certainly is not. Should we judge someone as conservative by word, or by deed?
Trump is not returning to the US of 100 years ago - it is clear that he despises the principles on which the republic was founded and is doing his level best to destroy them in double-quick time. Indeed not "conservative" at all.
@stetson I think I might prefer Marie Antoinette and the ancien regime to Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety if push came to shove... maybe not, but it's at least arguable...
Donald Trump seems to be working very hard to guarantee a Liberal majority government in our upcoming election. Those of us who were dreading a return to Conservative rule ( and the opinion polls were looking like that would happen for well over a year) must begrudgingly tip are hat to him for that small mercy.
Donald Trump seems to be working very hard to guarantee a Liberal majority government in our upcoming election. Those of us who were dreading a return to Conservative rule ( and the opinion polls were looking like that would happen for well over a year) must begrudgingly tip are hat to him for that small mercy.
As the old adage has it, it's an ill wind that blows nobody good...
Donald Trump seems to be working very hard to guarantee a Liberal majority government in our upcoming election. Those of us who were dreading a return to Conservative rule ( and the opinion polls were looking like that would happen for well over a year) must begrudgingly tip are hat to him for that small mercy.
You are assuming we will have free fair federal elections.
Donald Trump seems to be working very hard to guarantee a Liberal majority government in our upcoming election. Those of us who were dreading a return to Conservative rule ( and the opinion polls were looking like that would happen for well over a year) must begrudgingly tip are hat to him for that small mercy.
You are assuming we will have free fair federal elections.
I assume @Caissa is speaking of Canadian elections.
My neighbor just taught me this word. It seems to fit. A kakistocracy is a government run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.
Actually, not so much masturbation or wastage as unwillingness to do right, according to the Law, by the widow of his deceased brother. That unwillingness had the potential for very real and damaging consequences for her.
Actually, not so much masturbation or wastage as unwillingness to do right, according to the Law, by the widow of his deceased brother. That unwillingness had the potential for very real and damaging consequences for her.
Yes, indeed, you're quite right, though it seems that Onanism is often (incorrectly, it would appear) associated with masturbation and the resulting wastage of semen/male strength/whatever - which is what I thought @KarlLB might be hinting at.
I suppose one might simply call Trump, Musk, and the rest of the idiots, a bunch of wankers. It wouldn't be far off the mark.
Comments
Two other cases worthy of watching is the executive order regarding birthrights citizenship, and the impoundment of federal funds authorized by Congress.
I think Trump will ultimately lose these three cases. If he does, then what?
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth apparently texted top secret war plans to the editor of The Atlantic. [gift link] The editor was uncertain that this was genuine until the bombs started falling in Yemen.
This is why so few Americans say much here. We can't even be surprised anymore, we're that heartsick.
Seriously, there is so much wrong here. The most obvious is why use a commercial chat service when taxpayer funded SCIFs are available? The obvious answer is to evade public records laws. "Waltz set some of the messages in the Signal group to disappear after one week, and some after four."
If there isn't some serious, strong leadership from the opposition, and pronto, American democracy and the rule of law are finished. And I'm just not seeing anything strong enough. Bernie and AOC are barnstorming around the country on a "stop oligarchy" tour, and I had to hunt for reporting about it.
I could think particular factions or causes to glare at, but it's water under the bridge now and the main thing for us to do is get along and keep the coalition together. A leader would be nice. I think AOC is stepping up. God have mercy on her.
I just said an elected American politician is more left wing than I am. Those words don't even TASTE right.
Maybe it is true what they say; the coverup is worse (in the sense of being even more stupid) than the crime.
Not that I wanna put ya on the spot, but since you made the observation, what issues would you say that AOC is to the left of you on?
For those who are interested here is a compilation of nine minutes of Trump administration flop sweat. For those who are true masochists, you can watch the whole two plus hours on C-SPAN.
Three problems, as I see it.
First, it takes the power to control the elections from the state to the federal executive branch.
Second, it limits the use of mail in ballots to just people unable to go to established polling places--in modern society people just do not have the time to stand for long hours at polling establishments. It also demands all ballots have to be received on the day of the election--no more late ballots coming in late which will be a challenge with the pending changes to the mail service.
Third, it severely restricts voter registration to either a passport or a REAL ID (which is the new id required by Congress showing the citizenship of the bearer). Many people do not have a passport and it takes time to convert to the REAL ID.
A number of states attorneys and the ACLU have said they will take this to court.
I've always thought that "tax the rich" kinda went hand-in-glove with social programs and, at least until the early 1980s, public ownership.
As for "Modern Mobetary Theory"(great typo, btw), my understanding is it's something along the lines "It doesn't matter how much the government spends because they can always print more." IOW kind of the goldbug's caricature of how fiat currency works, but treated as a valid policy.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/25/pete-hegseth-journalist-group-chat-leak-war-donald-trump
I haven't felt safe for many a long year, but even less so now, with these buffoons - whether malevolent or just fuckwitted - in charge of the US.
An additional problem is that it disadvantages anyone who has had a recent name change. Updating your name on official documents is a pain and a complication. I can't believe it's entirely coincidental that this factor will affect women a lot more than men, given traditional customs about name changing upon marriage.
Given that there is typically not any way to acquire a passport or REAL ID without paying some kind of fee for it I'm not sure how this avoids violating the Twenty-Fourth Amendment's prohibitions on poll taxes* in federal elections.
*Cross-Pond translation: In the U.S. a poll tax is a tax or fee charged by the state as a requirement for voting in an election, not a per capita tax as the term is often used in the U.K.
Not quite. It's (as I understand it) more the modelling of money as being effectively created by government spending and destroyed by taxation, the upshot of which is that budget deficits for countries that control their own currency are not relevant, all that matters is whether the money being "destroyed" is enough to offset any excessive inflationary effect from spending. It's a sensible response to balanced budget fetishism.
Would they know how to use toilet paper?
Yes, fair comment. From this side of the Pond, chaos seems to be the operative word...
To quote Will Rogers: "I belong to no organized party; I am a Democrat"
My personal theory is that liberals are always at a disadvantage compared to conservatives because pretty much by definition, liberals will generally have a wide range of visions about how things could or should be and that can make it difficult to get wide-spread agreement and focus. Conservatives, on the other hand, can more easily unite around a more narrow vision that things should go back to how they used to be.
I did inadvertently take some American beer over into Canada once. I had forgotten to declare it until Mrs, Gramps asked me about it a couple of hours into our Canadian trip
The new regime is not at all conservative. It's radical.
Exactly so. Nothing whatsoever that is good is being conserved. It is all about destruction. Remember trump's campaign line? "Vote Democrat and you will lose your country!"
Well, there are some definite fault-lines between eg...
...Dr. Thomas Szasz, the right-wing libertarian whose The Manufacture Of Madness championed the persecuted witches as early practioners of free-market medicine against the proto-socialist church and its monopoly on healing, AND...
...paranoid mega-churchers in rural Kentucky who wanna home-school their kids to protect them from the satanic influence of Narnia.
Granted, both the hipster-libertarian and the home-schooler would agree(for different reasons) that parents should seize power over education from the state, and that's usually enough to keep most of both factions in the same tent, though I'm pretty sure the Libertarian Party fatally spoils the vote for Republicans now and then.
I don't think the definition of "conservative" has as a sine qua non the idea that a given person would agree that something good is being conserved. Marie Antoinette, Francisco Franco, George Wallace, and PW Botha were all conservative, but none of us would think they conserved anything that merited survival.
As for Trump, yeah, he's destroying existing institutions, but it's often in the name of impeding or even reversing the liberalization of laws and mores, and returning to those of about 100 years ago. Well within the parameters of conservatism, I'd say.
(Though I'll admit that if we accept the definition of fascism as right-wing policies masquerading behind a sense of revolutionary excitement, MAGA probably qualifies. I'd still call it conservative, though.)
"In the name of" and "In actuality" are quite different in this case. Yes his message may be conservative, but his method most certainly is not. Should we judge someone as conservative by word, or by deed?
@stetson I think I might prefer Marie Antoinette and the ancien regime to Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety if push came to shove... maybe not, but it's at least arguable...
As the old adage has it, it's an ill wind that blows nobody good...
You are assuming we will have free fair federal elections.
As in The Sin Of Onan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan#:~:text=Biblical account,-After Yahweh slew&text=When Onan had sex with,so the Lord slew him.
Not so much masturbation, as wastage...
(What a simply spiffing God of love, though...).
Yes, indeed, you're quite right, though it seems that Onanism is often (incorrectly, it would appear) associated with masturbation and the resulting wastage of semen/male strength/whatever - which is what I thought @KarlLB might be hinting at.
I suppose one might simply call Trump, Musk, and the rest of the idiots, a bunch of wankers. It wouldn't be far off the mark.