Jump to content

Gromnir

Members
  • Posts

    8528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    109

Everything posted by Gromnir

  1. *sigh* the sun's luminosity is increasing even as we speak, albeit so slow it would take a prohibitive number of lifetimes to notice the difference. regardless, the sun is getting brighter & hotter. in fact, long before the sun starts transitioning to a red giant and expands enough to engulf the earth (~5 BILLION years,) it is gonna be hot enough to cook off all the oceans from the surface o' our planet. due to luminosity increases, we probable got 1 billion years before the sun's natural life cycle renders the earth uninhabitable for human life. the sun swallowing the earth will be complete irrelevant as a threat to life on the planet, 'cause all animal and plant life will have been burned beyond ashes billions of years previous to that happening. sun expanding is so not a real concern regardless o' musk's busted timeline. but... @Gorth is the guy who should speak on this as 'posed to Gromnir, but the dinosaurs (other than birds) were wiped out 66 million years past and our earliest primate ancestors show up on the scene 100,000 years later. it is our recollection that the first plant life appeared on earth more than 450 million years ago. is gonna be a whole lotta mass extinction events and ice ages 'tween now and the elapse of 1 billion years, much less five billion. there will be no human beings 1 billion years from now... period. am so not claiming expertise on such, but am also not seeing anyway that even if a direct human descendent were to miraculously survive one billion years, it would even remote resemble the humans o' 2025. give musk the most generous benefit of the doubt and ignore his other silliness and focus only on, "several hundred million years," observation. first homo am not sure how accurate the video is, but regardless, the human ancestor in question showed up earth less than three million years past. three. am knowing the reality o' hundreds of millions and billions o' years elapsing is difficult for anybody to genuine conceive, but musk is kinda ignorant for a s'posed science guy. HA! Good Fun! ps late edit to add h. habilis
  2. shadow docket, so we got no explanation for the Court's decision. unlike the situation where venezuelans were on buses heading to an airport or to halt an imminent execution, am not seeing the exigent circumstances regarding trump's desired transgender ban for the military. the status quo were that transgendered people could serve in the military and am having heard no genuine argument that the presence o' a very small percentage o' trans people in the military somehow threatened situational readiness o' the armed forces. even if you think that trans people shouldn't serve in the military, do you honest see the kinda emergency scenario akin to executing an innocent woman or "deporting" people sans due process when the government insists there is no practical way to retrieve those people post "deportation"? again, justices alito and thomas were baffled and outraged 'caues the Court granted emergency habeas relief to venezuelans who had been loaded on buses and were headed to an airport. nevertheless, somehow they sees tragedy inducing exigency if trump's trans ban were halted while the ordinary and admitted slow legal process worked in its usual manner. full oral argument before the appellate court with possible appeal to scotus in regards to the trans ban woulda resulted in an irreparable injury to the federal government? how? am knowing am having said this a few times, but the new scotus reliance on the shadow docket to avoid accountability is one o' those under-the-radar issues we believe deserves attention. aside, for those hopeful the Court stands up to the trump administration, am warning that history is not on your side. there is a long and storied/sordid history o' scotus cowardice. if there is genuine fear a chief executive will ignore or undermine a Court decision, the safe money bet is that the Court will cave. every american school kid hears about marbury v. madison at least a couple times before they finish mandatory education. the detail from marbury which is glossed over or poor remembered is that the Court in that case surrendered to thomas jefferson, arguable our nation's first authoritarian wannabee. anybody recall who were marbury? john adams, the President before thomas jefferson, made a whole lotta last minute judicial appointments before he left office, more than fifty, which considering the size of the fed government at the time, that was a noteworthy amount. william marbury were one o' the individuals who had received a late term appointment from john adams, but he were amongst a not insignificant number o' appointees who, while they had been gained senate approval, had not physical received their commission. thomas jefferson refused to deliver the commission to marbury... and he also threatened to undermine the Court in a number o' creative if they tried to order him to do what he did not wish to do. John Marshall bravely stands up to thomas jefferson and establishes judicial review. "Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the U.S. system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary . Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the Constitution." huzzah. that means marbury received his commission and served as a judge, right? nope. Justice Marshall found a standing argument which simultaneous allowed him to establish judicial review, but also extricated the Court from the danger o' needing order President jefferson to deliver the commision to marbury and others like him. actually, james madison as secretary o' state woulda been ordered to deliver marbury's commission, but that is kinda beside the point. regardless, one o' the most well known scotus decisions were an example o' the Court finding a technicality which would allow them to avoid a direct confrontation with the chief executive. as such it should come as no surprise that the Court routine finds a way to knuckle under when a direct confrontation with the President is threatened. expecting J. Roberts to be one o' the few Chief Justices in US history to show real courage is not a safe bet... God help us all. HA! Good Fun!
  3. and if you were wondering why trump wants to kill npr and pbs... A Maryland town backed Trump's cost-cutting pledge. Now it's a target Emmitsburg voted overwhelmingly for President Trump in November. NPR interviewed about two dozen people here. Almost all of them voted for Trump, and many said his plans to cut federal spending were a key attraction. Now, they say they are puzzled as to why the administration would cancel national training for firefighters. HA! Good Fun!
  4. Federal judge orders NC to certify Riggs as winner in Supreme Court election “This case concerns whether the federal Constitution permits a state to alter the rules of an election after the fact and apply those changes retroactively to only a select group of voters, and in so doing treat those voters differently than other similarly situated individuals,” he wrote. “This case is also about whether a state may redefine its class of eligible voters but offer no process to those who may have been misclassified as ineligible. “To this court, the answer to each of those questions is ‘no.’” ... is not over, but keep in mind that meyer don't need to win for republicans to win. am suspecting litigation has already cost judge riggs ~$1 million, or perhaps a bit more. trump is threatening law firms who might ordinary take on such cases, so the pool o' attorneys to represent democrats is shrinking particular as the field o' election integrity is pretty freaking specialized. furthermore, republicans is able to target a handful o' high population districts in each state to challenge elections, 'cause is higher population and urban districts where democrats ordinary have the best voter turnout-- same is not true in reverse. even if democrats tried to flip the dirty trick playbook being used by republicans, chances are that targeting one or two districts in a statewide election won't benefit democrats 'cause when republicans win they get a multitude o' all those low population rural voting districts. there is some good news, well good news beyond the obvious that riggs keep winning. The Many Lawyers of Hannah Dugan more than a handful o' conservative legal superstars is stepping up to represent clients dealing with the trump administration. paul clement am realizing mr. clement is not a household name, but he is arguable the best in his field, and he is as conservative as they come, so it means something when he steps forward to represent judge hanna dugan as well as law firms facing trump executive orders. not all republicans is being cowards. HA! Good Fun!
  5. am suspecting you got a better chance with aclatraz than you would with adx florence trump's desire to make prisons great again, ignores the fact that the US doesn't have some kinda national shortfall of correction facilities. ... what kinda lunatic romanticizes sing-sing and alcatraz? am genuine curious how long alcatraz and the movie tariff silliness, imposed on an emergency basis for national security reasons, is gonna be sane-splained by fox and the legion o' maga pundits before they shift to criticizing lefties for fixating on alcatraz and movie tariffs when there is more important issues confronting real americans... like trans athletes and the inability to purchase raw milk at local supermarkets. late edit: ok, am admitting trump's alcatraz insanity ain't complete bad as it gives an excuse to post an old phil hartman clip. HA! Good Fun!
  6. our first thought were similar, that he had seen The Rock and thought it were kewl, but am suspecting the truth were more like disinfectant and sunlight for covid. probable some staffer or fox personality popped off about how the US needed a true terror prison 'cause regardless o' effectiveness, the point is to frighten people, and alcatraz is somehow both scary and kewl? trump hears or sees something, then has an epiphany and 'cause his uncle was an mit professor, all o' trumps ideas is necessarily genius, yes? the reason why Alcatraz were closed, the main reason, were 'cause it were something like 3x more expensive to run than any other fed prison. @Hurlshortmaybe took the tour within the last few decades, dunno. am suspecting he were told details 'bout alzatraz closing. so, the doge guy who cuts money for the pepfar program and for va cancer treatment trials 'cause is all 'bout cutting down on waste, now wants to reopen a money sink prison. brilliant. stoopid. the thing is, am predicting you are gonna now see a multitude o' maga pundits defending trump's impulse control. 'course our sundowning President didn't limit his sunday dumb to alcatraz. Trump threatens a 100% tariff on foreign-made films, saying the movie industry in the US is dying ... anything which takes the focus off of trump's recent court losses, his "deportation" blunders, and the serious diminished port activity in places such as los angeles, effectively work in his favour even if am suspecting he doesn't plan his bouts o' bad idea diarrhea as an actual ploy to distract; he is just that stoopid. HA! Good Fun!
  7. y'know how many times am having made same point to gd regarding his need to find false equivalency 'tween trump and other administrations... and that were pre trump 2.0. ... and am gonna admit am extreme disappointed not just in gd but in most americans insofar as cecot is concerned. if cecot were in the US, could trump send people there indefinite w/o a full criminal trial? hell no, and am suspecting even gd recognizes such. am not sure how trump has managed to dr. mesmer so many into thinking the fundamental question is about whether or not the people being sent to el salvador is tren de aragua. w/o due process necessary to prove andry hernandez romero and neri jose alvarado borges is tren de aragua, it were wrong to deport 'em... but they weren't just deported for chrissakes. 5th and 6th Amendments guarantee the right to a criminal jury trial if the government is gonna punish, and is no way gd or anybody else is gonna reasonable argue that being held indefinite in cecot ain't a punishment. what is happening is not just deportations. maybe it comes as a surprise to some, but when the government goes before judges they is not trying to legitimize cecot by claiming those being sent to el salvador is gang members. the government has not offered ANY proof in court that those sent to cecot is gang members; is trump, jd vance, and marco rubio who keep bringing up gang membership when talking to the press. according to the government, invoke the AEA means trump don't need to prove gang membership. now bring up burisma or some other whatabout nonsense? the thing is, there is a dozen or so trump 2.0 issues that got us near as angry as cecot. am ashamed that the freaking oval office meeting with zelensky probable doesn't make our top ten, and most of the tariff stuff, while it is the kinda thing which is most likely to anger americans, bothers us less than the blatant authoritarianism o' many other actions... tariffs is another situation where the real problem is Congress being cowardly and unwilling to stop clear Presidential overreach. regardless, gd and his false equivalency fantasies is at least a decade old. am not sure how he convinces himself that trump 2.0 is no worse than biden, but am not at all surprised. as should be obvious by now, and contrary to @Lexx fever dreams, am having for a long time been warning that institutional limits on trump are not genuine obstacles. is nothing too illegal or improbable when speaking o' trump. as such am not surprised by trump, save insofar as the recognition too many americans are ok with any trump excess. trump may be corrupt. he may be a criminal. he may have tried to overturn the 2020 election. but maybe he can get trans people outta sports and perhaps he can lower the cost of eggs, so am willing to ignore the bad stuff. serious? HA! Good Fun!
  8. Company Boasts Spending Up To $20 Million On Trump Crypto Coin To Buy Influence they ain't even hiding the corruption anymore. HA! Good Fun!
  9. we didn't have any doubt. he did the false equivalency stuff from the moment trump took office in jan 2017, embracing far-right talking points and conspiracy theories. gd convinced self that such were ok 'cause he knew in his bones that the libs wanted a state run police force that would take away his guns and round up dissenters in fema camps... if they just got a chance to do so. biden comes to office and just like during obama, none of his nightmares came true... so we get more o' the false equivalency and conspiracy theories; he needed to believe the biden administration were just as bad as trump. we could literal be here all day listing the ways in which trump 1.0 were orders of magnitude more o' a threat to the US Constitutional order than biden's tepid embrace o' wokeism and his, in retrospect, ordinary incompetence. we did so for freaking years... and for f&%$'s sake, how do these people keep with the memory hole nonsense? now, faced with a mere 100 days o' trump violations o' morality and law which somehow managed to be worse than Gromnir's predictions, folks like gd need convince self that kamala woulda' been just as bad, 'cause they are all bad. gd needs to believe such silly 'cause is folks like gd, voting 3rd party or not voting at all, who put us in this situation. am actual less anoyed with the complete disconnected and uneducated folks who voted for trump 'cause they thought he would lower the price of eggs. given the conspiracy theories gd would routine share as proof and defense o' his peculiar brand o' wacky, we were certain he were absorbing questionable sources o' information to fuel his world view. moving to rural wisconsin, a battleground state, so weren't gonna improve the chances o' him having some kinda epiphany. if you literal cannot see a fundamental difference 'tween trump authoritarianism and the biden administration, then... *shrug* yeah, am seeing the black humor in the recognition that now, when many of his worst predictions 'bout they is being realized in real time, gd feels comfortable ignoring politics. that said, we do hope he is doing well in terms o' health. HA! Good Fun! ps (edit): brain fart... had "jan 2016"
  10. am sooper happy you finally found your zen after a decade o' hyperbolic efforts to convince us they is all equal bad. *shrug* even so, am indeed hopeful you are doing well/better. edit: a quick clarification on jav v. trump-- scotus use o' the political question doctrine to avoid ruling against trump would be weak, cowardly and bad law. trifecta. however, weak, cowardly and bad law is what were the immunity ruling. am also recognizing J. Roberts may feel the need to go to extremes in his efforts to avoid a Constitutional crisis. we mentioned the political question option for scotus not 'cause am thinking it is a good legal argument but 'cause am recognizing the political question doctrine does provide the Court with a minimally plausible basis for deciding in favor of trump. HA! Good Fun!
  11. having now read the case a few times, am less optimistic. from the start, we assumed if this reached scotus, the political question doctrine might be the sticking point. as some might be aware, the US President don't have Constitutional power to declare war. Congress declares war. Congress has granted the President the capacity to respond quickly to emergency situations, including invasions... and tariffs, but that is a different issue... sorta. the point is that Congress is the Constitutional authority on war. if there is a question as to whether or not we are functional at war with tren de aragua, Congress likely gets the final say-so as 'posed to the Court, though paradoxical, the Court gets the final say-so on whether Congress in this case gets final say-so... which probable seems a bit confusing. there is two functional ways for trump to get around what looks on its face to be a smackdown from a trump appointed district judge in texas: 1) the Court demurs. scotus may simple says that whether or not the US is at war with tren de aragua is a political question not suitable for judicial review. Congress has options to declare that trump is exceeding his authority and it is up to that branch o' government to exercise their Constitutional authority, if they wish to do so. silence by Congress would functional = acquiescence. if scotus says the issue is a political question and not a legal one, then trump wins. 2) trump follows the sneaky advice of the district court. the district court appeared to criticize trump, but it also told him how to cure the defect in his invocation o' the AEA. ... lie to me such were the practical advice o' the judge. the judge observed that the executive needed to provide legal sufficient facts supporting AEA invocation, but that in his capacity he could not challenge the veracity of trump's provided facts. as such, trump needs to provide facts which support the claim that tren de aragua is a foreign invader (e.g. describe forces on the ground in aurora or wherever, directed by a foreign power to undermine the US national government,) but the judge will not question the validity o' such facts provided. the court will assume the facts provided is true and decide if such provided facts is legal sufficient to justify the use of the AEA. trump lies = trump wins. another example o' being beat to death with the three wise monkeys? with any other administration one might assume it would be political impossible to get away with outright fabrication o' lies made in Court which claim a gang, at the behest o' a foreign power, is murdering US citizens and holding american soil as part o' a plan to undermine the national sovereignty o' the United States of America. now go ahead and convince self that such would be a bridge too far for trump. we dare you. HA! Good Fun!
  12. am suspecting it were less about guts and more a matter o' common sense. until our freshman year in college, our knee-jerk reaction when dealing with law enforcement were to respond with snark... and if am being complete self-honest, barely disguised disdain. poor judgement on our part. were not US, but we once did need undergo a strip search and a rather unpleasant interrogation in an asian country, and were not even our scintillating personality which provoked the unpleasantness. simple misunderstanding. am s'posing the most shocking part o' the incident is that we received an apology, which we were informed almost never happened. regardless, in spite o' the wisdom which comes with age and experience, we nevertheless need tamp down an extreme strong desire to respond to any predictable stoopid law enforcement query with snark. am in our freaking fifties and even so am finding that we need take a deep breath and count to at least five before responding to any kinda cop question 'cause am knowing our reflex and unfiltered response will not benefit us in anyway. anyways, our point is that while it shouldn't be difficult to distinguish bravery from abject stoopid... HA! Good Fun!
  13. just as an fyi, for those unaware, the general inadmissibility o' hearsay is overcome by admission. hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and that definition is way more complex than it first appears, way too complex to full explain in a post. the arcane nature o' the hearsay rule is made more eye-roll worthy as there is also a whole lotta exceptions to the rule, including but not limited to death bed utterances and various statements which is collected in the ordinary course o' public and medical record keeping. statements against the speaker's interest, and more specific, admissions, is also gonna result in an exception. cops always ask you if you are aware o' why you were pulled over in the hopes of eliciting an admission. HA! Good Fun!
  14. am knowing trump ms13 tattoo misunderstanding has justifiably received the most attention, but the portion highlighted by the daily show from 5:59-7:01 might be our favorite. HA! Good Fun!
  15. complete separate issue trump appointed judge says we aren't being invaded by tren de aragua 36 pp ain't that long, but am admitting am not an expert on the case law, so is gonna take time for us to review-- cases is from ~1800 or ww2 and even when we were representing gang members for a living, the alien enemies act were not considered relevant. recommended: steve vladek's blsky and https://www.justsecurity.org/ will likely have useful input before we do. HA! Good Fun! ps the decision from the texas federal court applies only to venezuelan detainees in the southern district of texas. extreme limited and easy for the fed to ignore from a practical perspective.
  16. the only two people in the trump administration who am certain is pro tariff is trump and peter navarro. of particular note, watch from ~53 sec to 1:23. navarro explains how the .3% contraction of the gdp is good news 'cause but for tariffs, we woulda' seen 3% growth. ... so, trump tells us he can't be blamed for bad gdp numbers 'cause is still biden's economy, but his personal tariff whisperer then goes out and explains that but for tariffs, the economy were doing supercalifragilistic? and that's good news? the tariffs were a man-made disaster... a man-made disaster attributable to one person, but the trump folks messaging is so undisciplined that they is sometimes telling the truth by accident. the thing is, on fox news and elsewhere, navarro, lutnick, bessent and trump messages is being massaged 'til they fit a useful maga narrative. oh, and for the folks who is still convinced doge is anything other than a scam so that elon musk can get his hands on more data to bolster his ai aspirations, trump 2.0 has spent more than biden did in his first 100 days. am knowing many has already memory hole'd 2021, but just a reminder, we were still dealing with a global pandemic at the time. so much for cutting enough waste, fraud and abuse to cover the proposed new tax cuts for the rich, eh? Despite Trump's promised cuts, U.S. spent more than $200 billion more in first 100 days than last year DOGE's website claims the task force has already saved that much, at $160 billion, between canceling grants, contracts and leases and making cuts to the federal workforce. On its "wall of receipts" site online, the office reports the largest reductions so far come from the Department of Health and Human Services, General Services Administration, Department of Education, Department of Labor and Office of Personnel Management. Only about $60 billion, or less than 40%, of that alleged savings are itemized on the office's online "wall of receipts" and even those itemizations have included errors and lax documentation. In his work at the American Enterprise Institute, Malkus said his review indicates the savings is more likely to be around $80 billion. ... and btw, since we weren't around to pontificate on the matter, cutting legislative and executive branch programs because they is woke or dei is not addressing fraud, waste and abuse. pay two different organizations to do same thing is wasteful. pay an organization $10 million to deliver widgets but only get $10 thousand in widgets, with the rest o' the money being pocketed by organization administrators is likely fraudulent. but those aren't the kinda things doge cuts. maybe you thinks funding sesame street for middle eastern broadcast is stoopid. and perhaps you feel that saving malnourished kids in the sudan, or supplying south african expectant mothers with aids medicines is bad policy, but cutting those programs ain't necessarily addressing fraud, waste or abuse. those is policy choices and Congressmen, when they pass budgets, can stop funding o' such programs if they want to do so. some o' these programs is executive branch exclusive, and the President don't need to supply a reason to cut 'em, but describing as the elimination o' waste, fraud and abuse is misleading at best if what is actual happening is that elon and trump is getting rid of programs they don't like, even if those programs is being run efficient and effective. if some lib ne'er-do-well were getting rich off o' plumpynut, and the kids in the sudan were not actual receiving the lifesaving nutritional supplement, that would be an example o' addressing waste, fraud or abuse. if narcan didn't actual do anything, if it were somekinda snake oil, then we would cheer doge narcan cuts. ... with two exceptions, we gotta give trump 2.0 credit, 'cause the project 2025 folks and other did an impressive job o' wargaming this sh!te out. example: going after law firms in the way trump 2.0 has done so shocked us 'cause it didn't even need to be successful to have the desired effect. the mergers and acquisitions folks at these firms made a calculated decision to cave to trump demands particular after they saw that other firms not targeted by trump were trying to peel off clients from targeted firms. many o' the firms gave up w/o a fight even though they knew they would win in a fight in large part 'cause most o' their business were actual related to government contracts. if you is a multimillion or billion dollar client who has an sec issue you need handled, why would you stick with a firm trump had effectively declared persona non grata? so even if trump keeps losing in court, he has effective reduced the pool of potential lawyers willing to take on cases, which makes future trump loses less likely. who do you think is representing the undocumented immigrants in most o' the fed cases? you might be surprised to learn just how much o' pro bono work the big firms do, and the big washington and new york firms trump targeted is known for taking on a noteworthy proportion o' immigration cases as part o' their pro bono portfolios. another example: cecot. f*&%^. honest, am conceding a complete failure o' imagination insofar as the deal trump brokered with el salvador... and looks like rwanda might be the next el salvador. yeah, we assumed that the fed would play habeas corpus shenanigans by moving potential deportees asap to the most friendly court districts imaginable, but again, we saw deportation as the goal. we actually thought the alien enemies act would be invoked day 1, and we were surprised by the absence o' initial executive orders making use o' the alien enemies act. we so did not foresee that instead o' deporting those aurora colorado gang members who had taken over the city, trump would send 'em to prisons controlled by friendly governments as a way to avoid due process. just 'cause we loathe what trump is doing to undocumented immigrants don't mean we need ignore how ruthlessly clever were some o' the planning which went into stuff such as cecot. am bringing up the almost reptilian cunning o' the trump folks in implementing their schemes 'cause doge were a noteworthy exception. in truth, we sees two HUGE exceptions: doge and tariffs. am assuming doge were mostly an elon musk pet project, and so it weren't part o' the pre inauguration project 2025 planning. shouldn't be a surprise doge were implemented in the same haphazard manner musk used when he took over and fixed/broke twitter. tariffs were, am guessing, something most o' project 2025 were hopeful clearer heads could convince trump to embrace reason, as happened when trump wanted to tariff mexico during his first term. we posted in 2019 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/447374-trump-plans-to-declare-new-national-emergency-to-impose-tariffs/ a couple days later, trump had already caved. not that it matters at this point, but am not sure why trump keeps conflating tariffs and trade deficits, but he sees those two things as inextricable linked. beyond reason he believes that the US is getting screwed by any nation with whom we have a trade deficit, and he only sees a trade deficit on goods as relevant, complete ignoring services. point is, am thinking there were no real plan for widespread tariffs on any and all nations with whom we has a goods trade deficit, as well as those penguins, 'cause the wargaming for such tariffs were predictable. see, brought it back to tariffs. am trying to do the trump weave. HA! Good Fun! ps we noted the charlie fox o' doge and tariffs, but we did skip trump's top appointees. when kash patel, tulsi, rfk jr., pete hegseth and pam bondi got their positions in trump 2.0, we were outraged that those folks were partisan to a comical degree, with conflicts of interest and character flaws which woulda' torpedoed any past administration's efforts to have 'em gain senate approval. in retrospect, perhaps we should be relieved, 'cause one o' the few obstacles to project 2025 successful implementation is the incompetence o' trump's top loyalists.
  17. apologies for the double https://www.instagram.com/stopicenet/reel/DI5r8cRRtv4/ americans might be surprised to learn the feds likely don't need an arrest warrant for these kinda situations. am suspecting one reason why the guy in the vid is being detained at a courthouse is to avoid needing to have to deal with judges and warrants. arrest at home? yeah, then you need a warrant. it often makes sense to get an arrest warrant when you are arresting sans non exigent circumstances, but you do not necessarily need such. but why the plain clothes? why the refusal to show badges? why the balaclava ski mask? and no offense to mr. man-bun in the video, but am having met a whole lotta cops over the years and these guys don't seem like cops-- attitude is wrong and behavior is... weird. these "cops" seem far too anxious to be police with any kinda experience. am knowing it sounds ridiculous, but our thought on watching the vid were, "is homeland security deputizing rando office personnel?" and again, why the refusal to show badges? even if you secret squirrel your way into explaining the plain clothes, then why don't they display badges when making their arrest? and the ski mask? serious? everything about the arrest just looks wrong and am seeing so much potential for accident. HA! Good Fun! ps am certain almost nobody will watch, but... in the linked vid, trump is talking to a room full o' financial experts about the economy and inflation. almost every time trump said something outrageously stoopid, the people in the audience cheered/applauded. am gonna suggest that everybody in that audience who applauded knew trump were either lying or stoopid... or both, but they cheered anyway. those folks in the audience wanted a 2025 extension o' the previous trump tax cuts and they wanted more deregulation, so they not only ignored trump lies/stoopid, but they cheered. as such, is hardly a surprise politicians can get away with distorting economic realities. late edit to avoid double and
  18. Secret Deals, Foreign Investments, Presidential Policy Changes: The Rise of Trump’s Crypto Firm A Times examination of World Liberty’s rapid ascent from fledgling startup to international force — and Mr. Trump’s conversion from crypto skeptic to industry cheerleader — highlights the range of conflicts of interest trailing the company: World Liberty has directly benefited from Mr. Trump’s official actions, such as his announcement of a federal crypto stockpile that would include a digital currency the firm has invested in. The president’s announcement caused a temporary jump in the value of World Liberty’s holdings. World Liberty has sold its cryptocurrency to investors abroad, including in Israel and Hong Kong, according to interviews and data obtained by The Times, establishing a new avenue for foreign businesses to try to curry favor with Mr. Trump. Several investors in World Liberty’s coin managed firms that the federal government accused of wrongdoing. They include an executive whose fraud case was suspended after he invested millions of dollars in World Liberty. Other investors and business partners, some of whom haven’t been publicly identified before, are looking to expand in ways that will require the Trump administration’s approval. World Liberty proposed swapping cryptocurrencies with at least five start-ups, and often used the Trump name to solicit steep payments as part of the deals. Even in an industry with a disreputable history, the deals raised alarm among veteran executives. ... one other portion... “It’s one of the more successful things we’ve ever done,” Eric Trump, the president’s son who runs the family business, said in an interview this month at the Trump Doral golf course in Florida. He and his older brother, Donald Trump Jr., are actively involved in World Liberty, though they rely on three partners to oversee the daily operations. Two of them, Mr. Folkman and Chase Herro, have a mixed track record in crypto. The other is Zach Witkoff, the son of Mr. Trump’s envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, who is also a World Liberty founder. In recent days, Zach Witkoff, Mr. Folkman and Mr. Herro were in Pakistan meeting with the country’s prime minister, Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, and other top government officials to discuss World Liberty. The trip, complete with limousines, a dance performance and police escorts, seamlessly blended the president’s business interests with the trappings of a state visit. (Mr. Wachsman said no U.S. government officials were involved in the meetings.) President Trump has noted that conflict of interest laws do not apply to him, and that he has broad immunity for official actions he takes as president. ... is paywall, but we now get a free repeating three-day subscription via our public library and am suspecting many other folks in the US may do the same. most americans don't know what trump is doing, and so many o' the rest is whatabouting themselves into knots with invocations o' nanacy pelosi insider trading stories and the hunter biden laptop that nothing will come o' stories such as this no matter how lurid the details. HA! Good Fun!
  19. am gonna concede we added the link at the last second before posting when a thought occurred to us: the only person am certain is gonna get this is amentep. HA! Good Fun!
  20. too obvious to need be stated response: politicians is able to lie, misrepresent or just plain be wrong 'bout inflation w/o real repercussions because electorates don't understand inflation. is actual ok that most voters don't get micro and macroeconomic, but in the past, before the internet, those voters recognized that they only had the most surface level understanding o' economics even if they went to university and got some kinda liberal arts or stem degree not related to econ. in the 20th century and earlier, the electorate relied on reputable voices/sources for their econ education, just as they relied on experts to answer their medical, meteorological and early childhood education questions. 2025 is different 'cause expertise don't mean anything. voters either don't care enough to do research, or worse, when they do self education, they rely on internet searches to find sources that already support their "feels" or the position o' their chosen tribe, at which point they then believe they is experts. the problem is not that people are dumber or less educated today than they was twenty years past. today, too many voters don't care and just as many o' those remaining who do care only wanna listen to answers which support their previous held position. however, this ain't a new problem, at least not in the US. back in the late 19th century and early 20th century, the story were same, with americans furious about immigrants w/o real cause, coupled with transformative technologies changing what the majority population thought o' as cornerstones o' american culture and economy. virtual all the founding fathers were farmers, but by the late 19th century, manufacturing were taking over and waves o' immigrants were making america look, sound and even smell different, 'causing fear and anxiety 'mongst the electorate. needed to protect the american way o' life, right? https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Passes_Smoot_Hawley_Tariff.htm "A thousand economists signed a petition, drafted by a Chicago economist, and future U.S. senator, Paul Douglas, that implored the president to veto the tariff. “Poor Hoover wanted to take our advice,” Paul Douglas mused, but he could not bring himself to break with his own party’s congressional leadership. Ignoring the experts, Hoover signed the tariff on June 17, 1930." (edit: the original envisioned 1930 tariffs were limited and targeted, but politicians, recognizing the groundswell of popular support for tariffs, kept adding to the industries and products which would eventual be covered by smoot-hawley. the result were a vicious circle o' stoopid with a handful o' populists convincing the public that simple were the solution to all their problems: 1) get rid and/or limit immigration ... 'cause those dirty foreigners were committing crimes and taking american jobs; and 2) support protectionist policies which would save american farms/farmers and simultaneous limit foreign competition o' american manufacturing. win al around. experts pointed out how the tariffs were self destructive and it is likely many o' the politicians supporting the tariffs knew that tariffs would result in a kinda economic self-immolation, but americans wanted to believe in easy solutions and there were enough politicians and "experts" willing to tell those frightened americans what they wanted to hear. sound familiar?) back in the late 1920s, with historic divisiveness not seen since the civil war, experts were ignored. politicians spun to convince or appease their potential voters knowing it were in their best interest to ignore or even mock experts. same happened pre antebellum btw. the more frightened and divided is the electorate, the easier it is to fool 'em by telling 'em what they want to hear, or by confirming that their fears is justified. the internet, which were 'sposed to make it easier to self educate has ironic led to people being even more easily manipulated. no longer does the electorate need rely on experts whom they likely do not trust. instead, the internet is a useful tool for making most people believe they is experts when what they is typical doing is nothing more than repeating whatever is the narrative o' their chosen tribe. again, is no real mystery and is definite not new. added: https://www.axios.com/2025/04/29/tariffs-amazon-prime-day-sellers-report cowardice from big biz being the most predictable response in 2025, bezos backing down should also come as little surprise. HA! Good Fun!
  21. we were alive in 1978 when the last soviet venus probe fell back to earth. lee majors is now an octogenarian, but perhaps he can save us this time as well. HA! Good Fun!
  22. the government's own affidavits submitted severe undermine the narrative that the judge were trying obstruct an arrest, or at the very least, the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard needed to prove intent o' the judge is looking to be an insurmountable hurdle. first, pretty much no judge allows arrests in their courtroom, so there is a question as to what the heck the fed agents were doing in the first place as they were clear doing not business as usual. maybe 'cause the public don't know what is ordinary, the judge ejecting the feds from her court sounds nefarious but it most certain is not. second, the judge's actions don't look particular obstructive when you read details. while the judge did send flores-ruiz out of her court through the jury door, that egress point led to only one exit-- a hallway where, according to the fed's affidavit, two agents were waiting. if judge dugan were trying something sneaky, then sending him virtual into the arms o' the feds looks shaky. heck, again, according to the fed's own affidavit, flores-ruiz took the elevator down to the ground floor o' the courthouse before he tried to run, and he were not alone in the elevator but were in fact accompanied by a fed agent. ... found a useful link is a bit o' unnecessary editorializing, but read all fourteen. again, even the government has gotta know beyond a reasonable doubt is goanna be insurmountable, so the arrest o' the judge and detainment looks performative. this also looks pretty bad. maga has tried to make this a damned if you do scenario and they once again complete miss the underlying due process aspect. the government offers no meaningful proof, but they claim the deported mothers were asked whether they wanted to bring their US citizen children with 'em and they responded in the affirmative. maga: you libs are gonna be angry no matter what. if there is child separation, you whine. if the child stays with the parent and is deported, the social justice warriors complain. it's a no win. Gromnir: bs we don't have any evidence the mothers agreed other than government says so, but beyond that, we are told these women weren't allowed to talk to family or lawyers when confronted with the dilemma o' whether or not to leave their children in the US. the children, who is US citizens, unquestionable deserve due process before deportation and getting a head nod or a quick signature on a form from mom before being loaded on a plane is unlikely to satisfy due process. furthermore, the law says the mothers get process. even if you think undocumented immigrants don't deserve process, the law says otherwise... and thank god for that fact. example: have mentioned more than once that Gromnir looks quite a bit like esai morales, sans facial hair and the grey. inexplicable have very little grey hair thus far. anyways, tomorrow we could be picked up off the street by ice, thrown in a van, and subsequent sent to el salvador 'cause we look like an undocumented immigrant on some list. once in cecot, the US could claim there were no way for them to correct their mistake. oopsies. so sorry. due process is those steps which allows Gromnir to challenge the government before or after they does something wrong. if the government claims we is undocumented, a gang member, insurrectionist or terrorist, we should have a way to contest those assertions, no? again, like it or not, undocumented folks get due process 'cause its in the freaking Constitution. not only do we give undocumented folks process to prevent mistakes, but Congress also passed all kinda laws making it possible for undocumented folks to make asylum claims, so being undocumented don't necessarily mean they got no right to be in the US. relative quick aside, am having mentioned how for a few years we worked at a juvenile detention facility. am mentioning 'cause you would likely be shocked to discover just how little process is involved with categorizing a person as a gang member. we were warned during training that while a kid could have their criminal record expunged when they reached eighteen, the gang label would potential stick with kids for life. when a kid were brought into juvenile hall, during the intake process, we would affix appropriate labels to their file... or update existing labels. gang affiliation were one such label. nothing nefarious for you numerous acab folks. example: s-1 were a designation which indicated that a kid were suicidal or had a history o' self harm. s-1 kids were typical housed with a roommate but for obvious reasons the roommate would not be s-1; two s-1 in the same room were a recipe for tragedy. ok, but there were also designations which indicated an individual were a sexual predator, and those kids were typical housed solo, 'cause bad things could happen at night and between room checks. so what do you do if a kid is both suicidal AND a sexual predator... we don't need to get into all the ugly details, but as mentioned, one o' those "s- __" designations we utilized at juvenile hall were gang affiliation. you can likely guess why the staff at a juvenile hall would wanna know if a kid were a gang member and to which gang they had an affiliation. the thing is, that s-6 designation decision likely took less than a minute o' reflection by staff. typical factors: tattoos, input from the cop dropping off the kid at the hall, self-identification o' the minor. on busy days/nights at juvenile hall, there were considerable motivation to get kids processed asap. personal, we only ever listed a kid as s-6 if they claimed to be a gang member... we let unit staff who had more time figure it out. the thing is, am also confident a few kids lied about gang affiliation when asked. a few o' the folks sent to cecot were first identified as tren de aragua when they were minors and am having only a little doubt that the original labeling were 'bout as probative as what we saw day in, and day out working at juvenile hall. as such am not shocked so many ended up in cecot for little other than suspicious tattoos and maybe secondhand input from a cop. is perhaps worse to realize that the gang identification efforts used to send so many to a dystopian hell hole were likely less sinister than you believe and instead were ordinary. some clown working at a juvenile hall or jail in kokomo, indiana six years ago probable spent less than a minute deciding whether or not a new intake were a gang member, and that initial assessment stuck. HA! Good Fun!
  23. am actual not familiar with the mechanics o' what happened... am only able to speak to law/legal issues. as is typical for those in our profession, reality and all its attendant filthy details is often an annoying distraction from the important questions. <-- sarcasm. perhaps ironic, am able to speak to alito's curiously obtuse dissent w/o needing get into the legal weeds-- you not need be a lawyer to see problem with alito's position. presumptively, the reason scotus provided middle of the night and weekend emergency relief is 'cause the aclu, on behalf o' their clients, informed the Court that the government had put venezuelans on buses seeming with the intent o' taking 'em beyond the physical jurisdiction o' current habeas rulings limiting their deportation, so as to send 'em to el salvador w/o additional meaningful due process. ... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/legal-fight-raged-ice-buses-filled-venezuelans-heading-airport-turned-rcna202007 and today we learned o' more government shenanigans albeit in a tangential related case. https://www.justsecurity.org/110842/ice-dod-custody-deportations-cecot/ "The D.V.D. case directly affects the administration’s ability to deport Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador without an opportunity for them to present their claims of potential torture as required by federal statute. As I discuss at greater length in the substack, a key element to focus upon is that ICE retained custody over the detainees following the court’s Mar. 28 order and then appeared to switch them over to the Department of Defense (DoD) for transfer by military plane to El Salvador. The line of defense (some would say the game) being played here by the government is that DHS/ICE is a named defendant in the case but DOD is not." to get around a temporary restraining order which prevented ice/dhs from sending detainees out of the country, the government had ice/dhs transfer custody of detainees to the Department of Defense, who then went ahead and deported individuals protected by the tro. dude. am aware this is the kinda sh!te people believe is what attorneys do for a living, but that kinda rulez lawyering which happens in the worst dnd campaigns most certainly don't fly with federal judges. the tro named ice/dhs and not dod, but there is also standard boilerplate language in those tros which covers pretty much anybody working for/with or in aid o' those named in the tro, and if ice (executive branch o' the fed government) formal transferred custody of the detainees to dod (also part of the executive branch o' the fed government,) then is no court in the land which is gonna three wise monkey their way outta holding dod just as bound by the tro as ice. most courts has gotta be losing the patience and faith typical afforded to the executive. is utter unreasonable to pretend this is all just same ol' same ol'. alito pretending mock indignation when the trump administration is making blatant their efforts to thwart and undermine Court orders is less than compelling. again, the government had detainees on buses headed to an airport. taking those detainees outta the country from the texas district woulda' been illegal, but the shell game o' moving detainees just ahead o' court orders from new jersey or dc were something the feds had already done. even so, it is complete ridiculous to suggest the government would try the same shenanigans in texas, right? "fool me once..." so, for what reason did alito and thomas believe ice were carrying out their little fieldtrip? maybe the venezuelans were being taken for a weekend disneyworld excursion? even if you can imagine an innocuous explanation for the government's actions, what reasonable person would complete dismiss the possibility that the feds were trying to exploit the ordinary slow pace o' a typical judicial response? the fact the government were using "counterterrorism operations" as an excuse for not supplying details to plaintiffs AND the Court is not only beyond the pale, but it should make reasonable persons more suspicious about the government motives, no? nevertheless, alito and thomas can't figure why the aclu and the Court majority is getting their shorts in a twist. ... other than death penalty executions, it is difficult to imagine a more clear example o' the need for emergency intervention by the Court than we see regarding the possible extra judicial deportation of detainees to el salvador... and we remain reluctant to call such activities "deportations" as what is happening is that the US, without due process, is sending residents o' this country to a prison in el salvador for an indeterminate period a time. wtf
  24. am having mentioned previous how am shamefaced by the recognition that if we want legit nba arena or mlb park nachos, then queso sans american cheese or velveeta just don't match our expectations. ... am almost never bothering to click on youtube suggested links, but it has happened. had literal never watched the guy previous, but we saw the video thumbnail and for some reason we were simultaneous reminiscing 'bout campbell's condensed bean with bacon soup. we make a bean and ham/bacon soup that utilizes mayocoba beans, a soup which for us is a winter month staple and am recognizing our version has a similar flavor profile to the campbell's condensed version, so for funsies we clicked on the link to see where bean and bacon ranked. am so complete derisive o' internet ranking videos or lists, so is double strange we bothered to watch. triple strange is we watched even when we noticed bean and bacon were not one o' the soups he rated. *shrug* after seeing babish comments on the spicy nacho cheese soup, we bought a couple cans and experimented. first effort we tried straight. not great, but we understood babish observations. second effort had us add evaporated milk, a bit o' jalapeno brine and some corona beer. better. eventual tried five or six different varieties, but arguable the best result were when we shredded a few ounces o' decent sharp cheddar cheese and added it to the soup-- that's it, just the can o' soup warmed up and shredded sharp cheddar stirred into the molten mixture. diabolical simple and pretty much exact what we were hoping to achieve. online we has seen the campbell's soup priced as low as $.85 but typical ~$1.72. is not as if am regular making nachos or anything which would require a nacho cheese sauce, but given how shelf stable and cheap is the soup, am expecting am gonna always have a couple cans in the pantry henceforth. ... so weird. HA! Good Fun!
×
×
  • Create New...