|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 16 2025 22:18 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2025 21:47 Doublemint wrote:On April 16 2025 20:50 Billyboy wrote:
I agree, I also think the falling introvert conversation was interesting on like the meta level. You have two intelligent thoughtful guys who if given the same facts would likely come to the same conclusion. But here you can tell from all the media they take in they are making their conclusions off very different information.
Politics (and a bunch of other things) used to be where everyone would have the same facts, but you would disagree on the solutions. Or have different assumptions about the parts that were not known or whatever. But now we can't even agree on is going on in the first place. And I don't see a solution because if Falling sourced his points and Intro sourced his, likely neither would be moved because they don't trust the others sources. Both end up thinking the other is either misguided or worse actively lying and worst of all I see no solution or anyway this gets better. a better forum. not TL of course. but social media is wholly inadequate as it is built around the profit motive/engagement/thestupidest/loudestvoices prevail. and what's more, the algorithms are a black box. even if the good people at Meta or Twitter/X or Alphapet or wherever put their thumb on the scale you would not even be able to tell. at best when it is already too late. just check what is the most popular on ANY platform on a new computer with a new browser and preferrably IP address. it makes you question if we are not already trapped in hell... and kept docile. what I mean by better forum is literally a platform that is heavily regulated - but fairly so. so you need voices for all major parties that are doing the regulating. in the US I would even include Greens/Other Left and on the right Libertarians/Christians. have it run by a private company, which gets paid by the state for facilitating the servers. I heard a lot of good talent has been let go for no other reason than giving signals to the shareholders that "line should go up". social media failed us spectacularly. while hitting the motherload. Alphabet or Meta profits are... ridiculous. these companies make more money than god. the higher price they are willing - for us - to pay is democracy. trust erodes as we are siloed in and mis- and disinformed on a scale not seen ever. and kept apart information wise -everyone got their Feed or Reel. maybe not even intentionally in the beginning. but definitely now as politics caught up. biggest hurdle however is getting people to care, and a lot of them. and onto the streets. and then combine that to a movement for change. Trump did that with anger and resentment. Obama with hope and change. time is rife for something new and better. and quickly. "A republic if you can keep it" one of the founding fathers used to say. Trump and his worst instincts and impulses is what he meant, for people to be vigilant and be on the lookout when participating in the process of governing democratically. Forumites are superior to social media users, there is no reward mechanic or way of monetizing their writing. What you write on a forum belongs to a forum. And you can assume the opinion isn‘t based in material motivations.The issue is that the owners of social media are quickly becoming tools to politicians, sometimes the other way around, and their moderation is at the discretion of the owners who sometimes have more money than some governments. Both Meta and X formerly twitter seek to make their own rules, now at the behest of the current president who didn‘t hesitate to get them to adjust the algorithms. It takes a few flicks on a bunch of switches to turn an entertainment machine into a propaganda machine directing the emotions of masses of people to a government agenda. It can happen very quickly.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news. but yes there is a very clear way for monetization.
just as a more recent example from wikimedia.
Ai companies are in constant need of data to train their models... and what they cannot "steal" they have to buy.
companies reacted.
they are so hungry they will eventually run out of data.
could be interesting to know where TL chose to go with their data though. or what the people keeping the lights on have to do to keep crawlers and bots at bay 
|
What I‘m talking about are the addictive mechanics. Likes, reposts, etc.
On a forum and especially this one you‘re mostly free from that. You need to see the value of what is said on your own, you don‘t have masses, sometimes of bots, directing your attention. You don‘t get feedback except from replies.
The knowledge level of some of the posters and moderators here is extraordinary. And mostly it‘s posted for the sake of the information value, not to please some imaginary audience. That‘s why it feels superior to ‚modern‘ media.
Said media have become the toys of American billionaires who won‘t bat an eye to strip anyone of their personality rights when it suits them, either directly or through their puppets.
|
On April 16 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2025 21:42 decafchicken wrote:On April 16 2025 20:50 Billyboy wrote:
I agree, I also think the falling introvert conversation was interesting on like the meta level. You have two intelligent thoughtful guys who if given the same facts would likely come to the same conclusion. But here you can tell from all the media they take in they are making their conclusions off very different information.
Politics (and a bunch of other things) used to be where everyone would have the same facts, but you would disagree on the solutions. Or have different assumptions about the parts that were not known or whatever. But now we can't even agree on is going on in the first place. And I don't see a solution because if Falling sourced his points and Intro sourced his, likely neither would be moved because they don't trust the others sources. Both end up thinking the other is either misguided or worse actively lying and worst of all I see no solution or anyway this gets better. Falling is describing how the legal process is supposed to work while introvert sounds like a reasonable centrist because his position is more measured/thoughtful than the current administration's narrative when in reality it's insane to debate the ability to violate constitutional protections in the first place. A normal thing would be to discuss immigration policy reform, not how many crimes against humanity can we get away with to minimize the amount of non citizens in America. I perhaps am naïve as mentioned, but I also live and interact with the most conservative people in Canada all day every day and most of them are not "bad" people. In a one on one conversation I can almost always find common beliefs. The big problem is that people like Introvert are giving the benefit of the doubt (probably underselling) to the Republican's and their mega phones. The rest are doing the same for the Democrats. I don't think this means aim for the middle because that is not working and it is clear to me as an outsider that one side is far more honest (but far from perfect) than the other side. I also don't think that if everyone agreed on the facts that everyone would agree on the cause of the problems or the solutions. But I do think you could have actual good faith debates about it. I think with the immigration issues there are some common ground from most of the people that have posted. That people who come in illegally, or over stay there visa should be forced to leave. That legal immigration is extremely important to western countries as we have a aging population and lots more work than we have people willing and able to do and many of these people bring huge value. How to get rid of those people that are unwanted is the big challenge. And I think the philosophical part of how many are you OK with getting wrong to get most right. Like lets say the Dems are right on this guy, but the Reps are right on 99 others. Is that OK or not? What about 999-1 or 95-1? Where is the line? One thing that I do think is absolutely atrocious and should be unarguable is when a mistake is made, you fucking correct it. You shouldn't need the supreme court, and you sure as hell should not go against the supreme court especially when it is stacked in your favour and goes 9-0 against you. It is these types of reasons I can't give the Reps any benefit of the doubt and assume the worst, which I think is true for a lot of people. But they also have their own reasons for not trusting MSM or the Dems or whatever. The big societal question is how do we get over it and work together? Because the critical mass has been reached, there is no way one side "wins" at best it is a 60/40 split, probably closer. We can't keep cutting off our nose to spite our faces.
I recall Falling describing himself as a conservative. BlackJack is also generally anti-immigration/DEI/wokeness and he's not defending this madness.
It's entirely possible to be conservative and anti-immigration without throwing every enlightenment principle in the trash to align with Trumpism. I would go even further and say that Trumpism and conservatism are irreconcilable at this point
There's probably a lot of people that don't pay enough attention to politics and voted with Trump due to their community or due to the online content they were served, but we don't have that here. The ones defending his madness here aren't mildly political or weathervanes, they're true believers in the project trying to gaslight every step.
And we're way past the point where we have to hypothesize about future dangers because what he's doing now every day is already with both feet in the unacceptable zone.
|
On April 16 2025 23:05 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +It is these types of reasons I can't give the Reps any benefit of the doubt and assume the worst, which I think is true for a lot of people. But they also have their own reasons for not trusting MSM or the Dems or whatever. The big societal question is how do we get over it and work together? Because the critical mass has been reached, there is no way one side "wins" at best it is a 60/40 split, probably closer. We can't keep cutting off our nose to spite our faces. So much "but the other side". So much false equivalence. So much "we need to work together"... Work together with people who are perfectly OK with kidnapping and sending people to gulags with no due process. Work together with people who are trampling over free speech rights of students and punishing institutions by taking away their money over not censoring them hard enough. Working together with people who are gleefully cheering the complete mismanaging of the economy and alienating of almost every ally. With people who are on board with threatening neighbors with annexation and erasing the identities of trans people. Jesus fucking christ.
So what is your solution mate? You're not willing to talk to them, not willing to find out what you have in common. What is the answer? Because most of the people would disagree with your assessment of them, be offended by you suggesting it and never talk to you let alone join you.
If you have no noticed you're losing, they are winning. And when everyone, including probably me now for just suggesting that we need to come together, fails your purity test then you end up losing harder, but I guess you get to feel superior. Which seems like many peoples main goal these days.
On April 16 2025 23:33 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:On April 16 2025 21:42 decafchicken wrote:On April 16 2025 20:50 Billyboy wrote:
I agree, I also think the falling introvert conversation was interesting on like the meta level. You have two intelligent thoughtful guys who if given the same facts would likely come to the same conclusion. But here you can tell from all the media they take in they are making their conclusions off very different information.
Politics (and a bunch of other things) used to be where everyone would have the same facts, but you would disagree on the solutions. Or have different assumptions about the parts that were not known or whatever. But now we can't even agree on is going on in the first place. And I don't see a solution because if Falling sourced his points and Intro sourced his, likely neither would be moved because they don't trust the others sources. Both end up thinking the other is either misguided or worse actively lying and worst of all I see no solution or anyway this gets better. Falling is describing how the legal process is supposed to work while introvert sounds like a reasonable centrist because his position is more measured/thoughtful than the current administration's narrative when in reality it's insane to debate the ability to violate constitutional protections in the first place. A normal thing would be to discuss immigration policy reform, not how many crimes against humanity can we get away with to minimize the amount of non citizens in America. I perhaps am naïve as mentioned, but I also live and interact with the most conservative people in Canada all day every day and most of them are not "bad" people. In a one on one conversation I can almost always find common beliefs. The big problem is that people like Introvert are giving the benefit of the doubt (probably underselling) to the Republican's and their mega phones. The rest are doing the same for the Democrats. I don't think this means aim for the middle because that is not working and it is clear to me as an outsider that one side is far more honest (but far from perfect) than the other side. I also don't think that if everyone agreed on the facts that everyone would agree on the cause of the problems or the solutions. But I do think you could have actual good faith debates about it. I think with the immigration issues there are some common ground from most of the people that have posted. That people who come in illegally, or over stay there visa should be forced to leave. That legal immigration is extremely important to western countries as we have a aging population and lots more work than we have people willing and able to do and many of these people bring huge value. How to get rid of those people that are unwanted is the big challenge. And I think the philosophical part of how many are you OK with getting wrong to get most right. Like lets say the Dems are right on this guy, but the Reps are right on 99 others. Is that OK or not? What about 999-1 or 95-1? Where is the line? There is no philosophical ambiguity to navigate here. In America, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty via due process. Full stop. And even then, you can appeal your guilty verdict. And if you do want to follow that line of reasoning, immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens and as you mentioned provide a ton of cheap labor for shitty jobs that other people don't want to do and also paid $100B in taxes for shit they'll mostly never benefit from. Getting rid of them en masse like this is wrong and bad for our economy Show nested quote +
One thing that I do think is absolutely atrocious and should be unarguable is when a mistake is made, you fucking correct it. You shouldn't need the supreme court, and you sure as hell should not go against the supreme court especially when it is stacked in your favour and goes 9-0 against you.
It is these types of reasons I can't give the Reps any benefit of the doubt and assume the worst, which I think is true for a lot of people. But they also have their own reasons for not trusting MSM or the Dems or whatever. The big societal question is how do we get over it and work together? Because the critical mass has been reached, there is no way one side "wins" at best it is a 60/40 split, probably closer. We can't keep cutting off our nose to spite our faces.
The difference is most liberals and centrists do not give benefit of the doubt to the Democrats. The Dems did so poorly in the election because their base doesn't even like them and most of the voters are just voting against Trump. This is why Republicans do so well with the uneducated, evangelicals, etc. because those are the people less likely to think critically and just appeal to a glorified leader.
I'm not sure where you are going sorry, but it does not seem that far off from what I think but also does not seem to address what I was talking about. I'm scattered so not putting this all on you or anything.
|
On April 17 2025 02:16 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2025 22:34 Billyboy wrote:On April 16 2025 21:42 decafchicken wrote:On April 16 2025 20:50 Billyboy wrote:
I agree, I also think the falling introvert conversation was interesting on like the meta level. You have two intelligent thoughtful guys who if given the same facts would likely come to the same conclusion. But here you can tell from all the media they take in they are making their conclusions off very different information.
Politics (and a bunch of other things) used to be where everyone would have the same facts, but you would disagree on the solutions. Or have different assumptions about the parts that were not known or whatever. But now we can't even agree on is going on in the first place. And I don't see a solution because if Falling sourced his points and Intro sourced his, likely neither would be moved because they don't trust the others sources. Both end up thinking the other is either misguided or worse actively lying and worst of all I see no solution or anyway this gets better. Falling is describing how the legal process is supposed to work while introvert sounds like a reasonable centrist because his position is more measured/thoughtful than the current administration's narrative when in reality it's insane to debate the ability to violate constitutional protections in the first place. A normal thing would be to discuss immigration policy reform, not how many crimes against humanity can we get away with to minimize the amount of non citizens in America. I perhaps am naïve as mentioned, but I also live and interact with the most conservative people in Canada all day every day and most of them are not "bad" people. In a one on one conversation I can almost always find common beliefs. The big problem is that people like Introvert are giving the benefit of the doubt (probably underselling) to the Republican's and their mega phones. The rest are doing the same for the Democrats. I don't think this means aim for the middle because that is not working and it is clear to me as an outsider that one side is far more honest (but far from perfect) than the other side. I also don't think that if everyone agreed on the facts that everyone would agree on the cause of the problems or the solutions. But I do think you could have actual good faith debates about it. I think with the immigration issues there are some common ground from most of the people that have posted. That people who come in illegally, or over stay there visa should be forced to leave. That legal immigration is extremely important to western countries as we have a aging population and lots more work than we have people willing and able to do and many of these people bring huge value. How to get rid of those people that are unwanted is the big challenge. And I think the philosophical part of how many are you OK with getting wrong to get most right. Like lets say the Dems are right on this guy, but the Reps are right on 99 others. Is that OK or not? What about 999-1 or 95-1? Where is the line? One thing that I do think is absolutely atrocious and should be unarguable is when a mistake is made, you fucking correct it. You shouldn't need the supreme court, and you sure as hell should not go against the supreme court especially when it is stacked in your favour and goes 9-0 against you. It is these types of reasons I can't give the Reps any benefit of the doubt and assume the worst, which I think is true for a lot of people. But they also have their own reasons for not trusting MSM or the Dems or whatever. The big societal question is how do we get over it and work together? Because the critical mass has been reached, there is no way one side "wins" at best it is a 60/40 split, probably closer. We can't keep cutting off our nose to spite our faces. I recall Falling describing himself as a conservative. BlackJack is also generally anti-immigration/DEI/wokeness and he's not defending this madness. It's entirely possible to be conservative and anti-immigration without throwing every enlightenment principle in the trash to align with Trumpism. I would go even further and say that Trumpism and conservatism are irreconcilable at this point There's probably a lot of people that don't pay enough attention to politics and voted with Trump due to their community or due to the online content they were served, but we don't have that here. The ones defending his madness here aren't mildly political or weathervanes, they're true believers in the project trying to gaslight every step. And we're way past the point where we have to hypothesize about future dangers because what he's doing now every day is already with both feet in the unacceptable zone.
They most certainly are irreconcilable. But how do you show people that? I guarantee it is not calling them fascists at the first sign they don't pass your purity test.
I certainly agree with your second paragraph, US politics is strangely like pro sports where you cheer for your team no matter how bad they are. I suspect if the same policies that Trump was enacting were done by the Democrats most people who completely flip their stance. And not only without reason, but also because all the sudden their media sphere would be telling them all how good it is and how the other side is at fault.
|
On April 17 2025 02:01 Vivax wrote:
What I‘m talking about are the addictive mechanics. Likes, reposts, etc.
On a forum and especially this one you‘re mostly free from that. You need to see the value of what is said on your own, you don‘t have masses, sometimes of bots, directing your attention. You don‘t get feedback except from replies.
The knowledge level of some of the posters and moderators here is extraordinary. And mostly it‘s posted for the sake of the information value, not to please some imaginary audience. That‘s why it feels superior to ‚modern‘ media.
Said media have become the toys of American billionaires who won‘t bat an eye to strip anyone of their personality rights when it suits them, either directly or through their puppets.
I see. I guess monetization in this regard is a bit of a weird word but I guess I agree with just about everything you cared to post then!
|
US politics concerns everyone, that‘s the thing.
We‘re sitting here like ‚no more war‘ for almost a century and now one lunatic is altering borders in the east while another dreams of altering them in the west and they‘re shaking each others… hands. I almost said something else.
Billionaires above the law and so on. The Wests version of Abramovich, happily promoting authoritarianism and silly entertainment.
Probably drugs in Europe too but that‘s just a tinfoil theory.
|
On April 17 2025 02:01 Vivax wrote:
What I‘m talking about are the addictive mechanics. Likes, reposts, etc.
On a forum and especially this one you‘re mostly free from that. You need to see the value of what is said on your own, you don‘t have masses, sometimes of bots, directing your attention. You don‘t get feedback except from replies.
The knowledge level of some of the posters and moderators here is extraordinary. And mostly it‘s posted for the sake of the information value, not to please some imaginary audience. That‘s why it feels superior to ‚modern‘ media.
Said media have become the toys of American billionaires who won‘t bat an eye to strip anyone of their personality rights when it suits them, either directly or through their puppets.
This is a great summary of why forums are so crucial and why I have been a member here for so long. The expertise part is particularly true. One funny thing about all of us being here for like 20 years is how we're all older and deep in our careers and we've all acquired deep experiences with certain things.
|
On April 17 2025 03:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2025 02:01 Vivax wrote:
What I‘m talking about are the addictive mechanics. Likes, reposts, etc.
On a forum and especially this one you‘re mostly free from that. You need to see the value of what is said on your own, you don‘t have masses, sometimes of bots, directing your attention. You don‘t get feedback except from replies.
The knowledge level of some of the posters and moderators here is extraordinary. And mostly it‘s posted for the sake of the information value, not to please some imaginary audience. That‘s why it feels superior to ‚modern‘ media.
Said media have become the toys of American billionaires who won‘t bat an eye to strip anyone of their personality rights when it suits them, either directly or through their puppets. This is a great summary of why forums are so crucial and why I have been a member here for so long. The expertise part is particularly true. One funny thing about all of us being here for like 20 years is how we're all older and deep in our careers and we've all acquired deep experiences with certain things.
With the exception of certain posters, I'd argue.
|
Northern Ireland25237 Posts
On April 17 2025 04:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2025 03:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 17 2025 02:01 Vivax wrote:
What I‘m talking about are the addictive mechanics. Likes, reposts, etc.
On a forum and especially this one you‘re mostly free from that. You need to see the value of what is said on your own, you don‘t have masses, sometimes of bots, directing your attention. You don‘t get feedback except from replies.
The knowledge level of some of the posters and moderators here is extraordinary. And mostly it‘s posted for the sake of the information value, not to please some imaginary audience. That‘s why it feels superior to ‚modern‘ media.
Said media have become the toys of American billionaires who won‘t bat an eye to strip anyone of their personality rights when it suits them, either directly or through their puppets. This is a great summary of why forums are so crucial and why I have been a member here for so long. The expertise part is particularly true. One funny thing about all of us being here for like 20 years is how we're all older and deep in our careers and we've all acquired deep experiences with certain things. With the exception of certain posters, I'd argue.
Hey!
|
Dan Abrams Destroys Argument That Past Presidents Have Defied Supreme Court Orders
Despite the fact that the Trump administration initially acknowledged Garcia’s deportation was an “administrative error” in court, they have since argued he’s a violent MS-13 gang member — a claim rooted in an informant’s accusation from six years ago — and ranking members of the Trump administration, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, have even publicly dismissed need for the administration to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
During a televised Oval Office press event Bondi said it was “up to El Salvador” to return Garcia, adding: “That’s not up to us.”
Abrams mocked that claim as laughable:
The idea that the U.S. could not get Garcia back by simply asking for him is absurd. We are paying for the prison space. El Salvador is a tiny Central American country with roughly the population of Missouri. They’d comply in three seconds if the U.S. made a serious request for the return of a prisoner.
He added:
There is no ambiguity. They must facilitate his release from custody. Not give him a ride back if he is released… The administration has made no effort whatsoever and doesn’t intend to do so.
What concerns Abrams most, however, isn’t just the refusal to act on the order — it’s the narrative being manufactured to justify it:
When JD Vance, or Alina Habba, or anyone else in the Trump administration talks so openly about defying the courts, and they try to normalize it by saying other presidents have done it, let’s be clear: That’s not true. What they are talking about is completely uncharted territory. What they are talking about is creating a constitutional crisis. And believe me, I don’t use that phrase lightly. There are others who say we’re already in a constitutional crisis – no! We’re only in a consitiutional crisis if the court’s rulings are not enforced. Particular, the high court.
seems like the bigger guns took note of the craziness the Trump admin is trying to pull in order to - what? show they are not actually incompetent? overthrow the system of checks and balances?
at issue is the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, people have mentioned it here a bunch of times already.
|
On April 17 2025 04:19 Doublemint wrote:Dan Abrams Destroys Argument That Past Presidents Have Defied Supreme Court OrdersShow nested quote +Despite the fact that the Trump administration initially acknowledged Garcia’s deportation was an “administrative error” in court, they have since argued he’s a violent MS-13 gang member — a claim rooted in an informant’s accusation from six years ago — and ranking members of the Trump administration, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, have even publicly dismissed need for the administration to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
During a televised Oval Office press event Bondi said it was “up to El Salvador” to return Garcia, adding: “That’s not up to us.”
Abrams mocked that claim as laughable:
The idea that the U.S. could not get Garcia back by simply asking for him is absurd. We are paying for the prison space. El Salvador is a tiny Central American country with roughly the population of Missouri. They’d comply in three seconds if the U.S. made a serious request for the return of a prisoner.
He added:
There is no ambiguity. They must facilitate his release from custody. Not give him a ride back if he is released… The administration has made no effort whatsoever and doesn’t intend to do so.
What concerns Abrams most, however, isn’t just the refusal to act on the order — it’s the narrative being manufactured to justify it:
When JD Vance, or Alina Habba, or anyone else in the Trump administration talks so openly about defying the courts, and they try to normalize it by saying other presidents have done it, let’s be clear: That’s not true. What they are talking about is completely uncharted territory. What they are talking about is creating a constitutional crisis. And believe me, I don’t use that phrase lightly. There are others who say we’re already in a constitutional crisis – no! We’re only in a consitiutional crisis if the court’s rulings are not enforced. Particular, the high court.
seems like the bigger guns took note of the craziness the Trump admin is trying to pull in order to - what? show they are not actually incompetent? overthrow the system of checks and balances? at issue is the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, people have mentioned it here a bunch of times already.
At this point it seems more like a "when" than an "if" Trump and the legal system are going to come to loggerheads. Right now they are both still going through the motions, but they are running out of dance moves before the jig is up.
|
On April 17 2025 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2025 04:19 Doublemint wrote:Dan Abrams Destroys Argument That Past Presidents Have Defied Supreme Court OrdersDespite the fact that the Trump administration initially acknowledged Garcia’s deportation was an “administrative error” in court, they have since argued he’s a violent MS-13 gang member — a claim rooted in an informant’s accusation from six years ago — and ranking members of the Trump administration, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, have even publicly dismissed need for the administration to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
During a televised Oval Office press event Bondi said it was “up to El Salvador” to return Garcia, adding: “That’s not up to us.”
Abrams mocked that claim as laughable:
The idea that the U.S. could not get Garcia back by simply asking for him is absurd. We are paying for the prison space. El Salvador is a tiny Central American country with roughly the population of Missouri. They’d comply in three seconds if the U.S. made a serious request for the return of a prisoner.
He added:
There is no ambiguity. They must facilitate his release from custody. Not give him a ride back if he is released… The administration has made no effort whatsoever and doesn’t intend to do so.
What concerns Abrams most, however, isn’t just the refusal to act on the order — it’s the narrative being manufactured to justify it:
When JD Vance, or Alina Habba, or anyone else in the Trump administration talks so openly about defying the courts, and they try to normalize it by saying other presidents have done it, let’s be clear: That’s not true. What they are talking about is completely uncharted territory. What they are talking about is creating a constitutional crisis. And believe me, I don’t use that phrase lightly. There are others who say we’re already in a constitutional crisis – no! We’re only in a consitiutional crisis if the court’s rulings are not enforced. Particular, the high court.
seems like the bigger guns took note of the craziness the Trump admin is trying to pull in order to - what? show they are not actually incompetent? overthrow the system of checks and balances? at issue is the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, people have mentioned it here a bunch of times already. At this point it seems more like a "when" than an "if" Trump and the legal system are going to come to loggerheads. Right now they are both still going through the motions, but they are running out of dance moves before the jig is up. And then what? The courts don't actually have any means of forcing the WH to do something, everything relies on Congress being willing to remove the President for blatantly ignoring the law and I don't see that happening with this Republican Congress.
|
On April 17 2025 03:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2025 02:01 Vivax wrote:
What I‘m talking about are the addictive mechanics. Likes, reposts, etc.
On a forum and especially this one you‘re mostly free from that. You need to see the value of what is said on your own, you don‘t have masses, sometimes of bots, directing your attention. You don‘t get feedback except from replies.
The knowledge level of some of the posters and moderators here is extraordinary. And mostly it‘s posted for the sake of the information value, not to please some imaginary audience. That‘s why it feels superior to ‚modern‘ media.
Said media have become the toys of American billionaires who won‘t bat an eye to strip anyone of their personality rights when it suits them, either directly or through their puppets. This is a great summary of why forums are so crucial and why I have been a member here for so long. The expertise part is particularly true. One funny thing about all of us being here for like 20 years is how we're all older and deep in our careers and we've all acquired deep experiences with certain things.
I second (third?) these points. I find that I learn way more reading and discussing things with TL forum posters than I do attempting to sincerely engage with random strangers on social media.
|
On April 16 2025 22:09 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2025 21:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
At least 1 senator (can't find any info on anyone else going) is going to check on Kilmar Garcia
I'm not sure what should be done but I have to appreciate someone trying to do something. Could easily just be a publicity stunt, he could end up going into the prison and not coming out, or anything in between. Hard to know for sure in these times. The most likely outcome is that they simply won't give him access, but it's good that he's trying. I think it's a little dangerous to focus all energy on a single case though, having a media war over whether one particular person is a good person may not end well. Knowing the level of incompetence of this administration (see tariff printout) I expect a whole lot of the people that were sent to CECOT have no business being in a place like that and I would much prefer the focus to be more spread out on the rotten process (or lack of it) than on a single person. That's pretty much what happened. There are now more trips being planned.
I don't particularly disagree. The CECOT facility itself can't even really be described as a prison in the US sense, since a bunch of the people there haven't even been formally charged, let alone convicted of anything.
Every day there's like half a dozen things or more that should have the country running around "hair on fire" style. It seems that as long as everyone's Amazon deliveries keep showing up, their streaming services stay working, and they can brag/envy on social media, everyone just keeps going like this is going to work itself out or something though.
Make it about the "Maryland Dad", "the process", and/or whatever anyone can think of that will shake the US from this malaise into the drastic rectifying actions it needs and you'll have my support pretty much.
|
On April 16 2025 22:53 Vivax wrote:
If that isn‘t the erosion of democracy in realtime I don‘t know what is.
nah, the USA has been a 2 party dictatorship for a very long time. Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, JFK's assassination... you always get to find out how BS everything is 40+ years later when no one cares.
Both Reagan's and Biden's regimes rolled along very smoothly as both experienced drastic mental declines. Neither was really running the country. Everything Biden and Reagan did publicly their last 16 months in power was extraordinarily well choreographed, edited, and produced. That is 2 in the last 40 years. Guaranteed other Presidents in the USAs 250 year history have been very carefully controlled.
I'm here for the easy high standard of living and some degree of local representation. I'm not here to participate in the "ideal democracy" ... it does not exist... and it never did.
|
On April 17 2025 06:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2025 22:53 Vivax wrote:
If that isn‘t the erosion of democracy in realtime I don‘t know what is. nah, the USA has been a 2 party dictatorship for a very long time. Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, JFK's assassination... you always get to find out how BS everything is 40+ years later when no one cares. Both Reagan's and Biden's regimes rolled along very smoothly as both experienced drastic mental declines. Neither was really running the country. Everything Biden and Reagan did publicly their last 16 months in power was extraordinarily well choreographed, edited, and produced. I'm here for the easy high standard of living and some degree of local representation. I'm not here to participate in the "ideal democracy" ... it does not exist... and it never did.
It‘s like I‘m listening to Han Solo here, you smuggle avocados too so that checks out.
I don‘t think it‘s all just a big show. But it‘s not run cleanly either.
|
On April 17 2025 06:57 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2025 06:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On April 16 2025 22:53 Vivax wrote:
If that isn‘t the erosion of democracy in realtime I don‘t know what is. nah, the USA has been a 2 party dictatorship for a very long time. Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, JFK's assassination... you always get to find out how BS everything is 40+ years later when no one cares. Both Reagan's and Biden's regimes rolled along very smoothly as both experienced drastic mental declines. Neither was really running the country. Everything Biden and Reagan did publicly their last 16 months in power was extraordinarily well choreographed, edited, and produced. I'm here for the easy high standard of living and some degree of local representation. I'm not here to participate in the "ideal democracy" ... it does not exist... and it never did. I don‘t think it‘s all just a big show. But it‘s not run cleanly either.
Reagan in 1988 and Biden in 2024 were exactly that . a big show.
If it were run properly Reagan and Biden woulda been declared mentally incompetent and the VP takes over.
even '87 Reagan and '23 Biden were super shakey.
and again, that's just in the last 40 years.
On April 17 2025 06:57 Vivax wrote:
I don‘t think it‘s all just a big show. But it‘s not run cleanly either.
i'm not hand waving away all the stuff i listed. its real. it happened. this puts everything into question.
On April 17 2025 06:57 Vivax wrote:
It‘s like I‘m listening to Han Solo here, you smuggle avocados too so that checks out.
you can't detect a joke. i guess that checks out.
Although, as I said, Canadians have smuggled clothes and shoes worth thousands over the border as Trump pointed out and as the anecdotes I outlined explain. meh.
the higher the tariffs the more smuggling will occur.
|
On April 17 2025 06:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2025 05:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 17 2025 04:19 Doublemint wrote:Dan Abrams Destroys Argument That Past Presidents Have Defied Supreme Court OrdersDespite the fact that the Trump administration initially acknowledged Garcia’s deportation was an “administrative error” in court, they have since argued he’s a violent MS-13 gang member — a claim rooted in an informant’s accusation from six years ago — and ranking members of the Trump administration, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, have even publicly dismissed need for the administration to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
During a televised Oval Office press event Bondi said it was “up to El Salvador” to return Garcia, adding: “That’s not up to us.”
Abrams mocked that claim as laughable:
The idea that the U.S. could not get Garcia back by simply asking for him is absurd. We are paying for the prison space. El Salvador is a tiny Central American country with roughly the population of Missouri. They’d comply in three seconds if the U.S. made a serious request for the return of a prisoner.
He added:
There is no ambiguity. They must facilitate his release from custody. Not give him a ride back if he is released… The administration has made no effort whatsoever and doesn’t intend to do so.
What concerns Abrams most, however, isn’t just the refusal to act on the order — it’s the narrative being manufactured to justify it:
When JD Vance, or Alina Habba, or anyone else in the Trump administration talks so openly about defying the courts, and they try to normalize it by saying other presidents have done it, let’s be clear: That’s not true. What they are talking about is completely uncharted territory. What they are talking about is creating a constitutional crisis. And believe me, I don’t use that phrase lightly. There are others who say we’re already in a constitutional crisis – no! We’re only in a consitiutional crisis if the court’s rulings are not enforced. Particular, the high court.
seems like the bigger guns took note of the craziness the Trump admin is trying to pull in order to - what? show they are not actually incompetent? overthrow the system of checks and balances? at issue is the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, people have mentioned it here a bunch of times already. At this point it seems more like a "when" than an "if" Trump and the legal system are going to come to loggerheads. Right now they are both still going through the motions, but they are running out of dance moves before the jig is up. And then what? The courts don't actually have any means of forcing the WH to do something, everything relies on Congress being willing to remove the President for blatantly ignoring the law and I don't see that happening with this Republican Congress.
well let's be actually really, really, real here. GH might have his moment. in case all else fails, as is the revolutionary tradition in this country.
however I think before that happens, the Trump admin will have to bow down to the pressure from all sides. the insane foreign/asylum/economic policies and others that are just too numerous to name... are not sustainable.
they will be ejected by the voter at the latest when they lose the House and the Senate at this rate.
to keep it newsworthy as well, here's another Ambrose Evans-Pritchard from the Telegraph. as I would like to remind people, this is a conservative(UK) outlet.
How has it ever been possible in history that the world’s largest creditor would be defeated by the world’s largest debtor?” asks Uncle Ming.
Well, indeed. America’s savings rate has collapsed to 0.6pc of GDP. The US treasury depends on foreign investors to fund a national debt rising higher than ever before, already 122pc of GDP with a structural fiscal deficit of 6pc to 7pc as far as the eye can see.
The treasury must roll over 33pc of its $36 trillion federal debt over the next 12 months.
China had nothing to do with last week’s Treasury rout, the defining fiasco of Donald Trump’s mad antics. There were plenty of other reasons: a disorderly unwinding of the “basis trade” by hedge funds caught flat-footed; and above all the capitulation of Republican deficit hawks in Congress, willing to go along with a budget gimmick that lets America slash taxes and spend trillions more that it cannot afford.
But it is easy to see how China could create panic just before Treasury auctions if it wished to do so.
Did Trump have any idea what he was doing when he launched his tariff war against China, jauntily shutting down the anchor trading relationship of the international system?
One might have thought that the political pain threshold of the totalitarian, web-controlling Chinese Communist Party was infinitely higher than the threshold of Walmart-shopping Maga America or Republican politicians facing midterm elections next year. And equally that Xi Jinping has much to gain from defiantly refusing to “kiss ass”, as Trump delicately puts it.
|
I was joking about the smuggling relax.
I found the tone of your post funny so I felt like cracking a joke about it.
You‘re not telling me that it‘s US military intelligence running the post-election shitshow. I‘d never believe that. You can‘t make this stuff up.
Did he fake-fire the NSA chief in your opinion ?
They likely advised him but he thought he was better than all of them so he replaced them in order to work with Putin and begin dismantling the entire western order of the past century with threats and tariffs.
That ‚building‘ we used to live in is collapsing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
