US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4952

On May 03 2025 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
ICE director insinuating he's going to start arresting elected leaders.

https://twitter.com/CalltoActivism/status/1918026839135760879

On May 03 2025 00:56 oBlade wrote:

Homan isn't the director or leader of ICE, that's Todd Lyons who as a part of DHS is under the Senate-confirmed Kristi Noem.

If you find Homan's actual current job title other than "border czar" let us know as it eludes me. I wonder whether he's even technically working in the government or just out of the goodness of his heart.

On May 02 2025 23:35 JimmyJRaynor wrote:

WRONG. You are dead wrong. 94% of Quebecers voted in this referendum because they knew it determined the future of their province and the future of the sovereign nation of Quebec.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum

The importance and meaning of this vote is precisely why Parizeau flamed out so hard blaming "ethnics and money". Basically, Parizeau blamed the Jews. That ended Parizeau's political career. You don't fuck up that badly.. when nothing is at stake. YOu do fuck up that badly when everything is at stake. And, it was.


Canada was on the line on October 30th, 1995. In Quebec and Ontario, the world stood still dude. You are super out of touch while calling me out of touch. Whatever man. If you want to a deeper dive into October 30th 1995, the Canadian politics thread is where this needs to take place.

You could feel the tension. It was like a game 7, OT game... but it was real and not a game.

As polls showed Parizeau's approach as highly unlikely to even exceed 40% support in a referendum

In interviews conducted in 2014, Bouchard[107] and Dumont[108] both believed that negotiations would have resulted had the "Yes" side won and that Quebec would have remained in Canada with a more autonomous status. Bouchard, while approving of Parizeau's intention to unilaterally declare independence should negotiations be refused,[109] implied that he and Dumont would have been able to control negotiations and offer a subsequent referendum on a new agreement.[110] Dumont noted that international recognition would have been difficult had two of the three leaders of the "Yes" campaign been against a UDI, and that he and Bouchard were willing to slow the process down if necessary.

Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

n response to the referendum, Indigenous peoples in Quebec strongly affirmed their own right to self-determination. First Nations chiefs said that forcing their peoples to join an independent Quebec without their consent would violate international law, violating their rights to self-determination. Indigenous groups also demanded to be full participants in any new constitutional negotiations resulting from the referendum.[62] First Nations communities contributed significantly to the tense debate on a hypothetical partition of Quebec.

On May 03 2025 09:39 Billyboy wrote:
He is insufferable.

On May 03 2025 22:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Carney to meet with Trump on Tuesday. I wonder how the markets will react leading up to this meeting? I suggest the markets will rise and there will be hope. This is a big opportunity for Trump to pivot. He already has made positive statements about Carney weeks and months after trashing Trudeau hard core.

USMCA compliant Canadian Auto Parts have already been exempted...
Carney is the ideal straight man for the comic Trump.

after a big back and forth in the Canadian thread where this belongs ... I'm glad you conceded that October 30th 1995 was a greater threat to Canada than what is happening in 2025 based upon the behaviour of voters in the 1995 referendum and the 2025 election.
There are dozens of other facts that indicate this is also the case. However, that belongs in the Canada thread. Not here. So I won't respond in here about Quebec sovereignty.

On May 03 2025 23:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


To be honest, my initial assumption of this whole MS13/tattoo situation was that I had thought that Trump knew that the letters and numbers M, S, 1, and 3 weren't literally tattoos, but rather that they were decoded labels for the pictures below them (Marijuana = M, Smile = S, and apparently Cross = 1 and Skull = 3, like some sort of weird numerology or private gang symbolism.). But then after the Trump interview and all follow-up information emerged, I realized that my giving Trump the benefit of the doubt was wrong.

He sincerely believes that M, S, 1, and 3 are literally tattooed above the 4 picture tattoos. And that's insane.

"The president said, “Don’t do that. M, S, one, three, it says M, S, one, three.”
Moran countered, “That was photoshopped.”
He tried to move on, but Trump continued. “Terry, do you want me to show you the picture?” Trump said. “He had M, S as clear as you can be. Not interpreted.” ...
The letters and figures M, S, 1 and 3 and the words below the symbols do not appear in other recent photographs of Abrego Garcia’s hand, including one that Salvadoran government officials took when he met Senator Chris Van Hollen Jr on April 17. El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele shared it on X.
The tattoos also do not appear in a family photo of Abrego Garcia shared by immigration advocates.
MS-13 experts told PolitiFact that none of the pictorial tattoos in the photograph is a known signifier of MS-13."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/30/does-abrego-garcia-have-ms-13-tattooed-on-his-knuckles-as-trump-claims

On May 04 2025 00:42 Billyboy wrote:

It is very hard to wrap my head around how he can possibly believe it, but I saw the interview and my take was as well that he actually does. I just can't figure out how people are seeing what I'm seeing and thinking he is some super smart guy. Maybe he was? But clearly he is just clueless on so much now.

On May 04 2025 00:53 micronesia wrote:
The "why not nuke hurricanes" debacle actually kind of annoys me for a different reason. One the one hand, Trump doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt at all based on his behavior and what he's said over the past decade or so. On the other...

I've studied both weather and nuclear physics. I actually find the question somewhat interesting: What would it really take to disrupt a major weather phenomenon using technology? What would happen to a tornado if you detonated a tsar bomb right above it? What would happen if the USA detonated its entire arsenal in the eye of a hurricane?

We've done enough nuclear testing to understand the environmental/human impacts. We also know how dangerous weather and other natural disasters can be. Is it possible there's some way we could use one or more nuclear weapons, in certain limited circumstances, in some very specific ways, to actually improve overall outcomes for human life? Probably not, but it's not 100% obvious to me that the answer is guaranteed "no".

Still, I feel much better with Trump asking such questions when he doesn't also have the nuclear button and a team of yes-men below him.

On May 04 2025 00:53 micronesia wrote:
The "why not nuke hurricanes" debacle actually kind of annoys me for a different reason. One the one hand, Trump doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt at all based on his behavior and what he's said over the past decade or so. On the other...

I've studied both weather and nuclear physics. I actually find the question somewhat interesting: What would it really take to disrupt a major weather phenomenon using technology? What would happen to a tornado if you detonated a tsar bomb right above it? What would happen if the USA detonated its entire arsenal in the eye of a hurricane?

We've done enough nuclear testing to understand the environmental/human impacts. We also know how dangerous weather and other natural disasters can be. Is it possible there's some way we could use one or more nuclear weapons, in certain limited circumstances, in some very specific ways, to actually improve overall outcomes for human life? Probably not, but it's not 100% obvious to me that the answer is guaranteed "no".

Still, I feel much better with Trump asking such questions when he doesn't also have the nuclear button and a team of yes-men below him.