The Palestinian state and no other listed or mapped, "From the river to the sea!"
Trump 2.0
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
We should observe that even this description presumes that she helped someone "escape", when it isn't clear that she did anything unusual under pretenses of equal protection and due process. Moreover, there is a question of why federal agents didn't take their target into custody when they had a chance. And when we put that two and two together, our conservative neighbor's example would, as such, juxtapose due process and mass murder.
The fourth-wall note, here, would have to do with the idea of what it means to take someone like Atlan seriously. And maybe, in the time of Trump, some folks finally discover these elements exist, or something, but the prospect of how seriously to take someone like our recently-joined neighbor is hardly a new question to people who have been expected to take folks like Atlan (or even Sculptor) seriously.
†
Anecdote: Once upon a time, there was a 'caster from the self-appointed dirtbag left. Hell, I don't know, he's probably still around, but sometimes it seems like the dirtbag left's biggest leftist credential was being anti-liberal, and I really haven't kept up on his adventures. Anyway, thing is, one day he decided to pick a fight with Helen Keller. Actually, that's not what he was doing, but, rather, it was a poorly executed maneuver in a poorly conceived attempt to pick a fight with some SoCal progressives.
So, what he did was try to pick a fight with a Black Liberation Socialist, in that way of trying to pretend that liberals are extreme. Thing is, every Democratic-affiliated and Socialist party-affiliated organization in the region had rebuked, expelled, or disavowed the guy, whose organization was a Gilligan Trio ("Me, myself, and I"). And even among Black Power organizations, there's distance, kind of like, the boy ain't right, or thereabout. And, whatever, it was just another day among dirtbags, so to speak.
Moral of the story: The thing about bothsidesing clownish extremism among partisans is that one side, as such, doesn't empower those elements. For instance, while Godwin's Law has taken a beating in recent years, Poe's Law has gained extraordinary, perhaps even worrying, prestige.
Seriously, put the Black Liberation Gilligan Trio together with the New Black Panthers that even the original Black Panthers doubted, and that makes, like, three people. Oh, right, let me guess: Nobody remembers the "New Black Panther" scare among white conservatives in the U.S.
†
Anyway, yeah, for instance, this is Sciforums. Just the other day, a couple people were reflecting on some creepy↗ talk↗ about gay marriage, and, sure, that's the last thirty-some years, for me, and over twenty years at Sciforums↗, that I've been supposed to take that kind of bestial and incestuous failure to recognize consent seriously.
Also, sure, let me guess, nobody remembers when the Huffington Post published the appeal of the, uh, harmless, as such, pedophile. But, sure, for the record, the moral of that story is what anyone gets for taking certain conservative arguments seriously.
And, yeah, sure, to bring it around: The prospect of how seriously to take certain arguments and behavior, i.e., what credibility we owe them, is hardly a new question to people who have long been expected to take these people and their behavior seriously.
Trump. It leads to Trump. That's what happens if we grant this stuff any credibility beyond its waste of electricity or hot air.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Take them seriously in the sense of trying to grasp the etiology of their severe gaslighting disease.
Things You Couldn't Possibly Make Up... #113
Trump really needs there to be a link between the Venezuela government / Maduro and the Tren de Aragua gang. Why? Because that is what he based his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act upon, and the subsequent deportation of Venezuelan immigrants. Without such a link, the rationale for invoking becomes paper-thin, to the point of non-existent. No invasion by a foreign government, thus no "war", etc. The use of the Alien Enemies Act becomes unsupportable. So, yeah, Trump really needs his intelligence services to identify a link.
Only they haven't found anything.
In fact a declassified memo from the National Intelligence Council was released that stated that they had found no coordination between the government and the gang.
Oops.
So, what does the Trump administration do in the face of the inconvenient truth getting in their way?
Well, instead of mulling over the findings and adjusting course, Tulsi Gabbard, who is somehow the Director of national intelligence in the US, fired two of the highest-ranking officials, with over 50-years combined intelligence experience, because of their supposed opposition to the US president. No examples of such opposition were given. The office did say that "The director is working alongside President Trump to end the weaponization and politicization of the intelligence community". There are comments that the pair were fired for "leaking" the report on Venezuela, but it also appears that it was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
So, basically, if the intelligence community don't find evidence of what Trump wants them to find evidence of, they're "weaponising and politicising the intelligence community"? Or as a Democrat on the relevant committee said: “Absent evidence to justify the firings, the workforce can only conclude that their jobs are contingent on producing analysis that is aligned with the President’s political agenda, rather than truthful and apolitical.”
Anyhoo - expect the Trump regime to claim that the report is inaccurate, or merely the opinions of those nasty Biden-loving liberals trying to weaponise national intelligence against the Lord and Saviour of the United States.
Trump really needs there to be a link between the Venezuela government / Maduro and the Tren de Aragua gang. Why? Because that is what he based his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act upon, and the subsequent deportation of Venezuelan immigrants. Without such a link, the rationale for invoking becomes paper-thin, to the point of non-existent. No invasion by a foreign government, thus no "war", etc. The use of the Alien Enemies Act becomes unsupportable. So, yeah, Trump really needs his intelligence services to identify a link.
Only they haven't found anything.
In fact a declassified memo from the National Intelligence Council was released that stated that they had found no coordination between the government and the gang.
Oops.
So, what does the Trump administration do in the face of the inconvenient truth getting in their way?
Well, instead of mulling over the findings and adjusting course, Tulsi Gabbard, who is somehow the Director of national intelligence in the US, fired two of the highest-ranking officials, with over 50-years combined intelligence experience, because of their supposed opposition to the US president. No examples of such opposition were given. The office did say that "The director is working alongside President Trump to end the weaponization and politicization of the intelligence community". There are comments that the pair were fired for "leaking" the report on Venezuela, but it also appears that it was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
So, basically, if the intelligence community don't find evidence of what Trump wants them to find evidence of, they're "weaponising and politicising the intelligence community"? Or as a Democrat on the relevant committee said: “Absent evidence to justify the firings, the workforce can only conclude that their jobs are contingent on producing analysis that is aligned with the President’s political agenda, rather than truthful and apolitical.”
Anyhoo - expect the Trump regime to claim that the report is inaccurate, or merely the opinions of those nasty Biden-loving liberals trying to weaponise national intelligence against the Lord and Saviour of the United States.
Well, it's kind of like moral judgment. The thing about "judge not, lest ye be judged" (Mt. 7.1-3), for instance, is that forgiveness in that context actually requires some manner of judgment. To demonstratively express forgiveness is an assertion of superiority: One judges, and then magnanimously absolves another of that judgment. Actually demonstratively forgiving someone like that is, in this way, an act of public piety that is its own reward (Mt. 6.1-2).
The relevant question is whether the guilty, as such, are still dangerous, i.e., that the hazard persists.
Similarly, in the context of the danger they present, sure, we have to take certain people seriously.
But neither does that mean we must always receive such behavior graciously. Indeed, that expectation has, historically, only advanced the danger.
Is it a hatred, for instance, that deserves our scorn? Or a disease, such as you suggest, that therefore requires our best compassion? As far as they're concerned, though, how dare you fucking judge them. And, yeah, reinforcing those attitudes by expecting other people to receive them graciously is one of the ways many people managed to contribute to the legitimization of dangerous gaslighting.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Today's Post reports on 47 losing his s-t over criticism from Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift.
Let the record show: when 47 has one of his immature and thin-skinned hissy fits, men are targeted as stupid and talentless (often earning implicit threats) while women are dismissed as sexually unattractive. And this volatile, insecure and stunted 12 year old has access to the nuclear codes.
So, free speech for 47 and his MAGA minions, but Springsteen should keep his mouth shut.
Let the record show: when 47 has one of his immature and thin-skinned hissy fits, men are targeted as stupid and talentless (often earning implicit threats) while women are dismissed as sexually unattractive. And this volatile, insecure and stunted 12 year old has access to the nuclear codes.
You will let us know when it is no long Trump Derangement Syndrome and the country is actually taking a turn for the worse?
Is there anything at all going on inside that head of yours? He said when. Now if things do not take a turn for the worse, there is no when. If things take a turn for the worse, that will also be the when. Understand? (Rhetorical; I know you do not and cannot.)
IOW you have said absolutely nothing, as usual. The if is the when; the when is the if. And yet, at the same time, when people show me who they are, I believe them. You've shown us who you are a long time ago, and in, yet again, saying absolutely nothing here, you have added to the body of evidence. So there is that, I suppose. But why even bother?
Please feel free at anytime to chime in if you do think things are not looking good. Are you confident that everything this administration is doing is on track and things are going well? Are all the actions taken by the president legal and constitutional? Is everyone who has been affected by the policy changes doing well? Foreign diplomacy and confidence is not a problem?
Okay, I see what you're saying. They'll get there, they know what their doing. Currently, the administration has the lowest approval rating, Republican businesses are closing so they are changing their minds and prices are starting to escalate. But given time, it will all turn out just fine according to you.
Are any of the reported stories here on the administrations actions and their results false or misleading in your opinion? If so, it would be worth pointing out especially if you see a positive result and how that can be achieved.
And, it will be a long four year voyage of this administration that I assume will make America great again.
I can't help but think though, that while the ship has barely left harbor, it managed to run aground spilling oil and simultaneously knocking out the supports of a bridge toppling it into the water while steaming over other smaller boats. At least, from what's been reported, so far.
But, we'll see what an open ocean brings like maybe a 747.
He never did make it to the east did he.
Things You Couldn't Possibly Make Up... #114
Trump has claimed that he has sealed $1.2 TRILLION of investment from Qatar...
www.whitehouse.gov
Anyone know what the Qatar GDP is? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
It's c.$200bn.
That's right. Trump is claiming that Qatar will invest c.6x their national GDP in the US.
But Qatar may fund this through their own national debt, right? Well, that's currently c.50% of their GDP. So, sure, if they want to increase this to 500+% of their GDP, then good luck.
Otherwise, Trump doing what Trump does: lying.
Trump has claimed that he has sealed $1.2 TRILLION of investment from Qatar...
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Secures Historic $1.2 Trillion Economic Commitment in Qatar
MAKING AMERICAN MANUFACTURING AND INNOVATION GREAT AGAIN: Today in Qatar, President Donald J. Trump signed an agreement with Qatar to generate an economic
www.whitehouse.gov
Anyone know what the Qatar GDP is? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
It's c.$200bn.
That's right. Trump is claiming that Qatar will invest c.6x their national GDP in the US.
But Qatar may fund this through their own national debt, right? Well, that's currently c.50% of their GDP. So, sure, if they want to increase this to 500+% of their GDP, then good luck.
Otherwise, Trump doing what Trump does: lying.
And in case you missed it:
The Trump "Big, Beautiful Bill" for the budget failed to get through even the House Budget Committee in a 16-21 vote. Given that there seem to be 21 Republicans and 16 Democrats on the Committee, this meant 5 Republicans voted against the budget as presented, most citing concerns over the deficit.
Embarrassing for the GOP, for sure, and Maga Mike Johnson especially.
Worse still, there's more opposition among Republicans for this bill (as presented) in the Senate than in House of Reps, and it hasn't even gotten to the stage of being presented to the House of Reps!
The Dems are obviously not supportive as it cuts Medicaid (among other reasons), and some Reps (e.g. Sen. Hawley) are also not supporting it for the same reason. But others aren't supporting it because the cuts to Medicaid don't go deep enough. Ah, the joys of trying to thread the eye of the needle!
The Trump "Big, Beautiful Bill" for the budget failed to get through even the House Budget Committee in a 16-21 vote. Given that there seem to be 21 Republicans and 16 Democrats on the Committee, this meant 5 Republicans voted against the budget as presented, most citing concerns over the deficit.
Embarrassing for the GOP, for sure, and Maga Mike Johnson especially.
Worse still, there's more opposition among Republicans for this bill (as presented) in the Senate than in House of Reps, and it hasn't even gotten to the stage of being presented to the House of Reps!
The Dems are obviously not supportive as it cuts Medicaid (among other reasons), and some Reps (e.g. Sen. Hawley) are also not supporting it for the same reason. But others aren't supporting it because the cuts to Medicaid don't go deep enough. Ah, the joys of trying to thread the eye of the needle!
How about Judge John Luttig,, is this TDS? From his article in The Atlantic: The End of Rule of Law
"For the almost 250 years since the founding of this nation, America has been the beacon of freedom to the world because of its democracy and rule of law. Our system of checks and balances has been strained before, but democracy—government by the people—and the rule of law have always won the day. Until now, that is. America will never again be that same beacon to the world, because the president of the United States has subverted America’s democracy and corrupted its rule of law."
The End of Rule of Law in America
The 47th president seems to wish he were king—and he is willing to destroy what is precious about this country to get what he wants.
www.theatlantic.com