Gromnir

you wouldn't recognize word salad any better than logic. same old fails. again, from the linked rand report... highly recommended. In 2010, Iran began enriching to 20% in the PFEP using two centrifuge cascades. One cascade enriches 3.5% LEUF6 to roughly 20%. The other cascade is fed the tails assay from the first, which is around 2% U-235, and enriches it to 10%. The 10% product is then fed back into the first cascade at an intermediate point in order to enrich it to 20%. This procedure greatly improves overall efficiency. This is important from a cost perspective in producing fuel for the TNRR, Iran’s stated objective in enriching to 20%. However, it is also a useful way for Iran to improve its breakout capability should it ever choose to attempt a “batch recycling” process to quickly enrich 3.5% LEUF6 to 90% (this process is discussed in more detail in the section on breakout scenarios below). As of May 2012, Iran had produced 110.1 kg of 20% LEUF6 at the PFEP. iran had the know how and the resources at least as far back as 2012. but... It is unlikely that Iran will produce nuclear weapons within the next year, and it could be years—if ever—before it does so. At present, although Iran likely possesses the technical ability to make at least one deliverable nuclear weapon, it would be very difficult for it to do so without accepting serious risk. If Iran were to use its declared facilities for a breakout dash, it would likely require at least one year, and potentially more than two years, to build a bomb. Iran would find it extremely difficult to carry out a breakout dash using these facilities without alerting the United States and its allies, providing them with several months to consider a response. A potentially more attractive option for Iran would be to use a covert facility for HEU enrichment. However, this route would require the clandestine construction and operation of a facility, which would also carry significant risks. It is likely that Iran instead intends to focus its efforts over the near term on improving its breakout options, and to do so in ways that are unlikely to trigger a serious response, such as air strikes. Such a goal would be consistent with what has thus far been observed in Iran. ... Negative Security Consequences of Weaponization for Iran If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, the strategic results would not be all positive. In fact, Iran faces a complex and uncertain strategic calculus over the question of weaponization. The way that this calculus is approached, moreover, very likely varies across domestic political actors in Iran, with many elites more willing to accept the risks and costs of weaponization than others. The development of nuclear weapons could invite a preventive attack, and would likely trigger efforts on the part of other states to balance against Iran’s nuclear capabilities through arms buildups and possibly through the pursuit of nuclear weapons of their own. Iran would not be able to count on a benign response from Israel, and could find itself in a confrontation with a state that possesses far greater conventional and nuclear military capabilities. Weaponization could lead to a greater and permanent U.S. military presence or, in the worst case, military conflict with the United States. It could also increase Iran’s diplomatic and economic isolation, particularly with the West. Although some in Iran might believe that, eventually, they could go down the path of India and achieve a level of international acceptance as a nuclear power, they would not be able to count on such an outcome. For Iran, the security implications of weaponization are uncertain. Not all Iranian elites will recognize these potential trade-offs, however. The way in which Iran’s decisionmakers interpret the costs and benefits of nuclear policy choices will have at least as much to do with their particular views and assumptions as any objective calculation of rational regime interests. in 2012, rand and others observed how there were compelling reasons why iran was not likely to further pursue breakout, but were rather focuse on improving breakout capacity. regardless, the ability to do a thing is in no way disproven by a failure to do the thing in question. if zor reflected for even five minutes he could identify dozens o' examples which disprove his utter ridiculous claim, but in classic and predictable fashion he doubles down... and when confronted by sources, such as rand, iaea and isis, he bleats something irrelevant and repetitive. how many times has we replayed this same tired song? but, "Again," the whole point is that iran has been six to nineteen months away from breakout for at least 10 years and likely since 2003. nothing has fundamental changed in that time. is Gromnir who pointed out that the recent israeli attacks were preventative as opposed to preemptive, precisely 'cause there were nothing imminent about an iranian attack, especial with nukes. we observed earlier how if israel were most concerned about nukes, then their choice o' initial targets were perplexing... but less a mystery when viewed through the lens o' regime change. etc. in any event, what kinda l00n continues to fight with somebody, trying to prove a point their perceived adversary agrees with 'em 'bout? seriously dude. nevertheless, you keep making an observation which is utter irrelevant-- the fact iran didn't create a nuclear weapon since 2003, 2011 or whatever date you wanna choose as the one where folks who know a heck of a lot more than zor all seem to agree that iran was potentially months to, at worst, a couple years away from creating a nuclear weapon, in no way disproves the premise that they lack capacity to do so. what stopped iran from developing a weapon weren't a lack of capacity but rather their recognition o' the very real consequences o' genuine pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. the fact iran had the good sense not to antagonize, israel, the US and the world by crossing a red line since 2003 is strong if not conclusive evidence that they woulda' continued to forgo developing a nuke. converse, israel's calculus seems to be that they can claim self defense or some other kinda silliness and the other arab states as well as the US and the global community will at worst proclaim their indignation, but nobody will do anything meaningful to stop 'em. sheesh. honest, am feeling dirty for pointing out that we made zor's point before he did. somebody is too myopic or reflexive indignant to recognize they is arguing pointless. whatever. not new. HA! Good Fun! ps for those genuine interested in iran's breakout capacity circa 2012

well yes, which is why for over a decade iran has been deemed capable of developing nuclear weapons within a year. they got the know how and near all the required resources. again, duh. is the same silliness as we heard from zor in 2015 btw. the fact iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon in no way diminishes the possibility that they could achieve such in a realtive short period o' time. yeah, since 2003, iran had not been active working on developing a nuclear weapon, but rand, iaea, isis (institute for science and international security as 'posed to the terror group... or the egyptian goddess) and others were in agreement iran had progressed very close to the threshold stage. iran had virtual all the ingredients and the infrastructure, and at one point estimates were that iran were within one month of breakout, IF iran put forth the effort to achieve such... which they did not and had not... although am gonna admit the one month estimate were kinda an outlier. converse, from rand "In any case, this evidence raises substantial concerns about Iran’s nuclear activities prior to 2004 and supports the 2007 NIE’s finding that Iran had a weapon program in place until that time. It also raises substantial concerns about Iran’s behavior and intentions after 2003, and undercuts Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful in nature. The available evidence suggests that by 2003, Iran may not have had perfected its ability to produce a weapon, but had made significant progress with virtually every element of weaponization. It is unclear what, if any, progress Iran has been able to make in its weaponization efforts since its formal program was halted in 2003." "Even though Iran may already have developed the necessary technical components to produce a bomb, as of January 2012, Iran would likely need over a year to do so. This correlates well with the conclusions of the U.S. Intelligence Community, which has estimated that it would require Iran at least a year to produce a single nuclear weapon even if all available resources were swiftly dedicated to the task.107 Other credible sources, however, arrive at estimates as short as 6 months, or as long as 19 months.108 These estimates vary according to the assumptions they make about a number of uncertain variables. They also vary according to whether the intent is to identify likely or merely plausible—but unlikely—outcomes. Both worst-case and likely estimates will be provided in this section where appropriate." feel free to once again read or ignore the relevant sources, but back in 2011 and 2012, iran were estimated to be six to nineteen months away from developing a weapon, if they chose to do so. they had the infrastructure and resources to at minimum enrich enough U-235 to a purity o' 90% back in 2012, which were always the only real hurdle other than time and will. once enough fissionable material were produced, it could be removed to more secure locations safe from israeli bombing for instance, and then the iranians conversion o' heuf6 to metal, and machining of implosion devices could go through the predictable trial and error stages. back in 2011 and 2012 there were little disagreement that iran had the capacity and the basic materials to achieve breakout in a relative short timeline IF they chose to make the effort. the fact they didn't actual go through with such efforts is not proof that iran lacked capacity as 'posed to will. again, iran not developing nukes as proof they couldn't breakout within six to nineteen months is bad logic, and ignores the observations and conclusions o' reputable sources far more reliable than zor and al jazeera. HOWEVER, that is kinda our point. iran coulda moved forward at anytime since 2003, but they had made only incremental efforts in that direction and virtual no progress since 2015. hadn't done before the iran deal. hadn't done so after the iran deal... and hadn't appeared to make any efforts to do so even when the iran deal were ended. so israel pretending as if there were some kinda need for preemption ignores the past +ten years o' iran sitting on their hands. HA! Good Fun! ps (edit) in the spirit o' full disclosure, am admitting we were wrong about the original iran deal, and have pointed out our error multiple times. we believed the iran deal were foolish naive as it lacked any real enforcement and relied on iran to voluntarily comply with inspections and performance. and yeah, is not as if iran sudden became a good faith actor on thew world stage as evidenced by october 7, but by all accounts, iran were sticking to their commitments to not develop their nuclear weapons program even after the US broke the deal. yes, 2025 iran were likely even closer to breakout than were the case in 2015, if only 'cause iran were technical more advanced. so less than six to nineteen months? even so, israel's excuse for attacking iran appears little more valid today than at any other point in the past decade... or more.

logic failure. the fact iran hasn't developed nukes does not in anyway diminish the possibility that they have been one year away from developing a nuke for over a decade. iran no doubt made the calculation that they have more advantage being on the cusp o' producing a nuclear weapon than the costs o' actual possessing nuclear weapons would entail. iran has possessed the know how for a long time and they got most o' the infrastructure necessary to build a nuclear weapon. all they needed were time and will. iran has chosen nay as 'posed to yay... thus far. our neighbor has a phd in chemistry from brown. perhaps we once gave her sh!t about going to brown, in spite o' our joking, she has a legit degree and +30 years of experience working both at jpl and then teaching at major universities. she knows chemistry. if our neighbor wanted to, could she build a device similar (considerable more efficacious) than the one used by timothy mcveigh? of course she could. the fact she hasn't gone ahead and built such a monstrosity is hardly proof she is incapable of doing so. duh. curiously, our neighbor is a middling cook, though we suspect she could do baking w/o much difficulty. is not as if she is a terrible cook like in bad anime, but am having seen her make omelets, roast chicken and have watched her attempt to grill foods and am feeling a bit embarrassed for her even if we pretend to enjoy what she serves. honest, we don't know why it would be so hard for a world class chemist to follow a recipe, but... in any event, october 7 and hamas keeping hostages, some o' whom were abused and/or sexually assaulted, gave israel's initial retributive efforts legitimacy in many corners o' the globe that other chronic war crimers don't have. israel, in spite o' their october 7 blunder, correctly predicted that the outrage over palasteninas suffering in gaza would amount to sound and fury. am genuine surprised israel calculations proved accurate, given the ugly humanitarian crisis israel indulged in beyond any seeming reasonable efforts to remove/punish hamas and get hostages returned. we woulda' thought there were a limit to how much palestinian suffering arab nations and the US would accept before making serious efforts to intervene, but am admitting we were wrong. the thing is, am suspecting too many arab nations is even less sympathetic about iranian suffering than they were 'bout palestinian. but again, the potential downsides o' a conflict 'tween israel and iran is so not similar to the worst-case scenarios for israel v. hamas. we woulda' expected a bit more pushback after the initial israeli preventative attacks. shows we don't know enough to provide meaningful analysis, but we don't pretend to neither. HA! Good Fun! ps (edit) am not sure about everybody else, but pete hegseth taking time to go on jessie waters to reassure the world that a US attack on tehran was not imminent was very comforting. (<--sarcasm)

dunno, but after israel went after hezbollah, this were the increasing likely outcome... but am still not sure what israel sees in the fog of war for this new front to make sense. for decades, israel were doing the mow the grass approach in gaza, kneecapping hamas but recognizing that genuine weeding 'em out were too much effort and pointless as whichever group came after hamas would likely be ideological as bad. worse, hamas 2.0 might be more capable; hamas were incompetent at providing basic government services and israel seemed to think they were a limited threat insofar as their terrorist ambitions. hamas popularity were always low, save for immediate after terrorist or mass rocket attacks. get rid o' hamas seemed pointless when any alternative were likely to be worse. personally we couldn't figure out the gaza campaign beyond the initial retributive stages... until israel attacked hezbollah. the carnage in gaza made little sense to us as the idf were going so far to gain so little. the next hamas would be just as bad, and there would be legit reason for the palestinians to be more supportive o' river to the sea goals. the post october 7 gaza campaign were creating a generational wound. again, hamas were only ever popular with the people of gaza after they killed israelis. whenever hamas popularity got dangerous low, they committed some kinda "atrocity" against israel, and that seemed to mollify the people of gaza for a time. the vulgar levels o' violence done by israel in gaza were only gonna make hamas, or the next hamas, more sympathetic when that group carried out bloodshed against israelis. however, going after hezbollah made sense o' gaza 'cause it revealed israel were not interested in just getting rid of hamas; israel had larger goals. again, destroying hamas were gonna be bloody and pointless, 'cause whoever came next would be just as bad if not worse. the real danger was that the next hamas would be more competent. the thing is, israel recognized that october 7 happened 'cause o' iranian support o' hamas. once israel attacked hezbollah, it looked to us like their ambitions for a post october 7 were much more comprehensive than regime change in gaza. iran were likely always the ultimate ideal goal after october 7. is doubtful the israeli plan has gone exact according to the post oct 7 script, but am suspecting they always wanted to level gaza, decapitate hezbollah and the US were s'posed to neuter the houthis-- can't trust the americans to do anything right these days, eh? iran were always the ultimate goal, but could israel pull that off w/o facing the initial hamas quandary? what does regime change in iran really get israel... 'cause is obvious to us this ain't really about the iranian nuke program. israel intelligence shocking blundered in a big way regarding october 7 and am thinking that since that time, israel has been incremental building up to the iran attacks we see today, but am admitted not fully comprehending what is the final goal. even if regime change were somehow successful, how would that make the situation for israel better? the next iran is gonna be more huggable and less competent? serious? am giving israel credit for accurate predicting that the rest o' the arab world would sit idle and watch gaza burn. so far, israel also appears to have guessed right about the level o' outrage from the arab states following attacks on lebanon and iran. the US joining in to take down iran? if there is one thing which might encourage other arab states to come to iran's aid, the great satan aiding israel more direct might do it... but we got no real insights about what the arabs would or wouldn't do save to observe that israel has been more prescient than we gave 'em credit. still, none o' this actually makes sense to us save as a way to temporarily save netanyahu's political bacon, no pun intended. bloody regime change in iran poses similar issues as does regime change in gaza-- is worse 'cause the scale is so much larger in iran, and iran does have the know-how and basic resources to construct nukes. israel avoided regime change in gaza for many years and following innumerable rocket attacks precise 'cause the outcomes didn't justify the costs. why would israel believe the situation with iran is better? am admitted baffled by the reason and logic, but this might not be about reason and logic. HA! Good Fun!

joe rogan has an epiphany warning: sweary HA! Good Fun!

well, perhaps the navy (13 october) and marines (10 november) will do a better job when they get their parades. afterall, seeing how today were all about the army and not trump's birthday, that means that for the 250th birthday o' the navy and the marines, similar parades is gonna occur, yes? sure, a relative small number o' people showed up to trump's birthday... sorry, the army's birthday parade, and the whole event looked kinda underwhelming, but practice makes perfect. got two more shots at perfection. surely when the navy and marines get their parades, improvements will be made. more sponsors? perhaps you won't be able to hear the squeaky sherman tank noises over the sound of roaring crowd noise when people are cheering for the marines? trump wouldn't dare doze off for the marines, right? HA! Good Fun!

Multiple ICE impersonation arrests made during nationwide immigration crackdown as ice is routine wearing street clothes, balaclavas, and refusing to show id, the fact there hasn't been some kinda lethal incident/accident, particular in a stand your ground state, is nothing short of miraculous. unless the goal is to trigger such an accident, am unable to see the rationale... particularly insofar as the refusal to show id is concerned. but harris woulda been just as bad, right? the people who claimed they would use lethal force to deny a federal officer if the government tried to confiscate their gas powered chain saw if such were condemned due to imaginary environmental legislation, those people sudden go uncharacteristic meek and quiet when feds is routinely arresting american citizens by accident. am typical mistaken for puerto rican or mexican, and our post retirement wardrobe is admitted kinda embarrassing. no more ferragamo loafers and nice suits. in fact, one o' our old work colleagues keeps calling us "fetterman" 'cause we routine wear hoodies, shorts and sneakers ('course now that it is getting warmer, the hoodie is probable gonna disappear by 6am on most days, but am suspecting our new fetterman nick sticks for awhile.) we sure as heck don't carry a passport or have our birth certificate with us everywhere we go. how easy would it be for us to end up in an ice facility by accident with no way to prove our citizenship status? regardless, what happened to all the outrage from the libertarians? the "justified" anger 'cause o' rumors that the libs might do something was common a year ago, but now maybe the folks at reason.com write a they are all bad article when describing their disappointment about venezuleans and afghanistan residents having their temporary protected status summarily and arbitrarily revoked... but of course their lead article is 'bout biden. wtf? HA! Good Fun!

sure, this is unfortunate, but look at the violence of blm in 2020 and the widespread riots destroying la today. are libs genuine in their condemnation of political violence, or are they tacit advocates? whatabout the two trump assassination attempts? whatabout steve scalise and the 2017 baseball game shooting by a bernie sanders supporter? whatabout... am not having a hard time anticipating the deflection and whataboutism. as for the godfather, it is almost necessary to watch the first two films as both is cultural reference points-- if you don't know 'em, you miss the allusion and won't get innumerable memes. we read the bible in college not 'cause we were religious but do to the fact we would miss a large % o' famous author allusion and references if we didn't know the bible. you think we wanted to watch the star wars prequels or the jj abrams star wars films? hell no, but to get all the inevitable star wars references we knew would become part o' cultural norms, we suffered the indignity. HA! Good Fun!

started watching the prof g markets youtube 'cause it is specific directed at young men as kinda an alternative to the idiotic cryptobro and tate brothers sludge. we don't "get" rogan and we sure as heck don't understand the appeal of andrew tate, but am recognizing such sources is increasing popular with young men, young men who made a hard shift towards the right this last election. we started checking out markets based on a recommendation we got. am not pretending we got any idea whatsoever about what kinda content that resonates with young men. am dubious markets works for the target audience but that is 'cause am a cynic. galloway and elson advice may be distilled as follows: get a job and start saving and investing in s&p 500. ... that were the advice we routine got plus thirty years ago and have been giving the past plus twenty. it's good advice, but am not sure it works with gen z as it is intended. however, and more specific, we were sooper impressed with markets recent guest, kathryn anne edwards. knowledgeable. smart. willing to offer pushback. full disclosure: type "debt" and "income inequality" into the board search function and you are gonna see a bunch o' Gromnir posts. democrats are concerned about income inequality and republicans once were once s'posed concerned about debt, so we didn't fit into either camp in spite o' being more fiscal conservative than lib. individuals such as kathryn anne edwards and cathrine rampell who preach a similar ethos as Gromnir is gonna resonate, so am admitting perhaps we see ms. edwards as smart as much 'cause o' how articulate and prepared she is but also 'cause we agree with her. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna admit we were surprised fordow, bushehr and isfahan sites were not hit in the initial strike. learning that perhaps israel were doing this solo helped make sense o' what we were seeing. if the goal were a preemptive knee-capping o' the iranian capacity to develop nuclear weapons, then this were a kinda slipshod effort as it nowhere near achieves such an outcome and likely only accelerates iranian efforts at the remaining sites, no? less 'bout an immediate halting o' the nuke program. considering how the trump admin leaked israeli intel in the first term, and the houthi stoopid more recent, we woulda' been more surprised if israel wanted the US anywhere near their operation... and given how well executed the israeli attacks were, (which again makes the exclusion o' fordow, bushehr and isfahan noteworthy,) it's hard to imagine the clown car assembly o' a reality tv show and serial sexual assaulter Pres who disturbing regular exhibits aphasia symptoms, a fox and friends weekend host defense secretary, a real estate mogul handling the diplomacy end o' things, plus tulsi gabbard (don't get us started,) were anywhere near the planning and execution o' the israeli version o' the baptism scene from the godfather. trump is gonna take credit just so long as things appear positive, but he will distance if/when things turn sour. 'course the truth o' the matter is that the US has become an increasingly irrelevant participant in the calculus o' middle east players since obama. even so, am not gonna pretend we have any kinda special knowledge. maybe the US and israel did work together, but am embarrassed to admit that israeli success makes US involvement less likely in our mind. 2025 is so not what we woulda' imagined in 1999. HA! Good Fun!

well, to be fair, the 2000 camp david thing happened after yitzhak rabin were assassinated, so... am suspecting bill clinton and @Gorth disagree about why camp david failed, but am gonna suggest it were the second intafada which marks the end o' any o' the parties involved being serious about even the possibility o' a lasting peace. *shrug* from a practical pov, am suspecting it don't matter much. for more than a couple decades, nobody has been serious about even trying to forge a lasting peace in the region. edit: Almost all of the Fulbright board resigns, citing Trump administration interference The former members said they voted to resign on Wednesday, effective immediately, "rather than endorse unprecedented actions" that they believe violate the law, compromise U.S. national interests and undermine the Fulbright program's mission and mandates. "Our resignation is not a decision we take lightly," they wrote. "But to continue to serve after the Administration has consistently ignored the Board's request that they follow the law would risk legitimizing actions we believe are unlawful and damage the integrity of this storied program and America's credibility abroad." ... only five months in and trump killed cisa, stopped enforcing white collar crime as part o' doj, stopped investigating foreign bribery and domestic terrorism as part o' the fbi mandate, gutted usaid, fired attorney generals w/o cause in addition to many thousands of probationary employees and hundreds o' other relative minor disruptions to dozens o' different departments, but few seems to notice or care. HA! Good Fun!

not directed at elerond, but am having been seeing "pre-emptive" language to describe the israeli attacks from various news sources... particularly fox. is wrong. words matter. HA! Good Fun!

this would never have happened if trump were President. HA! Good Fun!

the thing to keep in mind is that almost half the country don't see anything wrong with what happened to mr. padilla. in fact, am suspecting 1/3 o' the country woulda' been more pleased if the senator were visibly injured during the altercation. am serious. tell us with confidence that Gromnir is wrong. doesn't matter that what the senator were doing was legal. doesn't matter that alex padilla had been escorted into the presser by both fbi and national guard; no "busting in," nonsense. doesn't matter that the senator did in fact announce his identity as a senator, though again, as he were in the fed building at the time of the presser, he had an escort that knew his identity. etc. facts don't matter. the reality don't matter. even if you do the impossible and convince somebody that alex padilla didn't do anything illegal, then chances are you will hear whataboutism or some kinda deflection. alex padilla is one of them, so when bad things happen to him, the initial reaction is gonna be that not only did the senator deserve the treatment he received, but that he shoulda' gotten more it... and by now, trump politicians know what trump voters want. when nixon were convinced by republican Congressmen to resign, those republicans, almost to a man, were primaried during the next election. trump is ignorant of history, but am gonna suggest near all senators and most representatives serving in 2025know history... and am certain those political creatures is aware that their constituents don't care about what is right and just unless it is they/them who is doing wrong. perhaps worse, the independents and democrats who either voted for trump or didn't vote for harris, are somehow ok with what is happening to social security, the va, pepfar, free speech, legal immigrants from afghanastan and venezuela losing their protected staus (another one am disappointed @Guard Dog can remain quiet regarding 'cause he knows what it means to be sending translators and those who helped US troops back to afghanistan,) and due process. they is ok with trump's corruption with market manipulation and his meme coin. they is ok with cecot. they is seeming ok with just about anything save whatever may personal be important to them. for gd? second amendment rights? for a farmer in north carolina? perhaps if the ice raids start happening on north carolina hog farms or... unless it affects 'em personal, trump voters or those who couldn't be bothered to vote against him, cares little that trump is gutting norms and freedoms. heck, even when people is personal impacted, chances are they still can't admit they were wrong, 'cause we don't do that anymore. again, when we saw the reaction to trump's muslim ban promise, we finally got it-- an increasing % of americans want them/they to suffer. First Amendment? due process? basic christian values? none o' that minor stuff matters 'cause trump is a fighter who is finally going after the real bad guys: illegals; libs; smart-arsed college professors; etc. "A poor Russian peasant’s neighbor has a cow, but the peasant himself has none. Every day the peasant has to walk by his neighbor’s field, where he sees that cow. He admires the cow, even adores it, envying the animal to the point of obsession. He even dreams about the cow at night. One day, the peasant goes into the forest to cut wood–and he finds a sprite bound to a tree with bonds that only a mortal can undo. The sprite promises the peasant that, if he frees her, she will grant him any one wish. So he unties her…and says, “Kill my neighbor’s cow.”" globalism is working. here in the US we are all becoming more russian, eh? HA! Good Fun! ps try and imagine how the alex padilla situation woulda' played out in 2015. if the dhs secretary's security detail had done the same thing to a sitting US Senator, the dhs woulda' likely apologized, right? maybe jeh johnson explains that security reacted with perhaps an overabundance of caution to the presence o' a large man with no visible press ID at the presser. woulda' been described as a truly unfortunate and regrettable mistake, right? in 2025, mike johnson is suggesting his colleagues in the senate should be calling for padilla's censure. never admit fault. double-down. gaslight with the help of fox news and turn this seeming loss into a win. too many republican voters like seeing a democrat US senator getting man handled, so go with a victim blaming effort, right? but, if harris was President, nothing would change, so...

just a reminder, 'cause with all the new illegal and improbable, people convenient memory hole the old. cecot. the US government sent an unspecific number o' people to this place no trial. not even a hearing. we can't be certain o' how many american residents were sent to el salvador, nor has the fed confirmed the identities o' those sent to cecot 'cause o' some ambiguous amalgam o' "state secrets" and "terrorism." we only know for sure the details regarding one person sent to cecot: abrego garcia. the only reason we learned the circumstances o' the abrego garcia situation is because a government lawyer admitted that the fed made a mistake by sending mr. garcia to cecot. that lawyer were fired. the government public says that everybody sent to cecot is a gang member, but the fed has offered no proof in court o' such 'cause "state secrets" and "terrorism." sure, we has been told via caroline leavitt and fox news that everybody "deported" were a nasty and terrible nogoodnik, but that ain't the same as going before a judge and providing affidavits, is it? why would you take on faith that the government is being truthful 'bout this? the only way we have even a rough idea o' who was sent to cecot, other than abrego garcia, is 'cause news outlets such as the washington post and sixty minutes did research... pieced together info from lawyers and family members o' persons with immigration cases who sudden disappeared from ice facilities contemporaneous with the military jets going to el salvador. cbs managed to get ahold of an internal government document via a leak which provided identities of most/many sent to cecot, but the government has only voluntarily provided the number o' persons sent to el salvador via the alien enemies act and traditional deportation efforts. again, since there were no trial or hearing, plus something-something "state secrets" and "terrorism" means there is literal no proof that the people we sent to cecot is criminals, gang members or undocumented. regardless, even if the government had held the hearings SCOTUS says 9-0 (even thomas and alito agreed on this point) were a necessary prerequisite to deport people under the alien enemies act, that ain't what happened in reality. the more than a hundred people, some o' whom might be american citizens who never committed a crime for all we know, were not deported back to their country o' origin. those +100 people (something 'tween 137 and 250?) were sent to serve out an indefinite period o' incarceration in a facility which manages to make a few o' those siberian gulags look like resort spas. ... where is the outrage? serious, what is wrong with americans that this don't bother more people? particular from the i don't trust the government and you could be next crowds, where is the justified anger? why is this not an inflection point for more people? how is this so last week/month already? in case it isn't clear, am a bit disappointed. HA! Good Fun! ps @Malcador not that it matters. shame is no longer a thing.

you just can't help yourself, can you? ... there is no american shared reality. facts mean nothing. we had a comprehensive response, but it just ain't worth it. you didn't see a difference during trump 1.0 and you can't see the danger after the past five months of 2.0. if a President calling out the marines to confront protesters doesn't move you, then... am not surprised that you tenaciously embrace brobdingnagian false equivalency as a defense for your they are all bad mantra even after the deluge of unprecedented authoritarian and unconstitutional actions by trump, actions which has managed to shock even our self who predicted chaos and corruption. no, am not surprised. however, am nevertheless genuine disappointed.

is arguable that tank man during trump 1.0, although far less dramatic, were mattis, kelly, esper, milley and to a lesser degree, mcmaster. Donald Trump called them 'my generals.' They call him a threat to democracy: ANALYSIS READ: The Full Statement From Jim Mattis trump were shocked that his his generals (and other former or current military officers such as esper) were the people in the administration who most aggressive resisted the subversion of Constitutional norms. unfortunate, the deference command officers is trained to afford civilian leadership meant that those generals had a difficult time public condemning the Commander in Chief, in spite o' the fact those military men were part o' the administration in a civilian capacity. mcmaster maybe gets a partial pass as he were technical still a general when serving as national security advisor to the President? am genuine sympathizing with milley as he were not serving in a civilian role during the trump years. regardless, trump's romantic notions about tough guy generals and admirals who were complete loyal to him were crushed midway through his first term. thank goodness. who wouldn't feel safer today if mattis, kelly and milley were still in the white house/pentagon as trump contemplates sending US troops out to confront protesters. tank guy ultimately didn't stop the chinese crackdown. converse, trump's generals were a bit more effective in their defense o' the Constitution even if their efforts were less obvious, although it is tragic that those same generals couldn't bring themselves to vocal condemn trump publicly when it mighta' made a difference. what if? HA! Good Fun! ps the white house lawyers, the actual fed government attorneys as 'posed to trump's personal attorneys, were also bulwarks against trump excesses, although they were constrained by law and ethics from public disclosing trump actions and conversations. for trump 2.0, the admin has perhaps managed to dig up a few more jeffery clarks in addition to the clowinsh appointments such as judge jeanine, alina habba and pam bondi? less cartoonish and perhaps more dangerous is the competent trump personal lawyers who now work within the doj: todd blanche; emil bove; susan necheles.

in 2020 and 2021, we were confident most command officers would refuse to comply with illegal orders from a commander in chief... not all, but most. trump is an ignorant clown, but he knows how to measure and test weakness in people. am thinking the fort bragg campaign-style speech, delivered at this moment, were calculated. boiling the frog.

Exclusive: DHS secretary sought military arrests and drones in Los Angeles in leaked letter this story should be getting far more attention. if the trump administration uses the military to conduct law enforcement operations, then you got a crossing the rubicon kinda event. am baffled that so many don't understand just how unprecedented this is. “We need … support to our law enforcement officers and agents across Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Federal Protective Services (FPS),” Noem wrote, “as they defend against invasive, violent, insurrectionist mobs that seek to protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations, and who seek to prevent the deportation of criminal aliens.” for years we have been warning 'bout the questionable use o' the terrorist label to enhance punishments and reduce due process rights o' defendants, but the use o' the military to conduct arrets o' protesters on the grounds those protesters is supporting terrorism is not something we saw as likely until recent. today is kinda predictable that ice barbie would use "terrorist organizations" to legitimize what in 2015 woulda' been unthinkable to every republican US senator. imagine how @Guard Dogwoulda' reacted if jeh johnson, the secretary of DHS under obama, had invoked the hobgoblin of "terrorist organizations" to call up and use the marines to arrest and possible shoot protesters during the ferguson kerfuffle? personal, we had our eyes opened to the genuine danger o' trump when he proposed a muslim ban... and the crowd on hand cheered. the cheering crowds is what worried us. we knew something were wrong not just with trump, but with too many americans. ten years pass and am waiting for america to catch up to where we has been since 2015, but that just ain't happening. instead, many republicans such as lindsey graham and marco rubio, who knew trump were vile in 2016, now thinks trump authoritarianism is keen and folks like gd has decided that politics is just too much o' a bother to be worried 'bout the possibility o' marines shooting protesters on the streets of american cities. so it goes HA! Good Fun! ps highly recommend the following sources for summaries o' the legal issues regarding the federalization o' the national guard and the surrounding issues: “The Insurrection Act” by Any Other Name: Unpacking Trump’s Memorandum Authorizing Domestic Deployment of the Military and there is likely no better source than steve vladeck when constitutional law and the military intersect.

double-post apologies, but seeing as the previous post exhibits our typical lack of brevity, we didn't want this link to get lost/buried. Former DOGE engineer says federal waste and fraud were 'relatively nonexistent' I, probably stupidly, was asked by a — not even a journalist but a writer who just has a blog about my business going open-source, and I spoke to him. He had a bunch of questions about me working for DOGE and I felt that Elon was pretty clear about how he wanted DOGE to be maximally transparent. That's something he said a lot in private and publicly. And so I felt, OK, cool, I'll take him at his word. I will be transparent and sort of "ask forgiveness not permission" sort of thing. I said mostly that the government was not as inefficient as I was expecting. And then, my access got revoked pretty shortly after. I didn't get notified. I was basically ghosted and I just got an email notification that my access was no longer valid. HA! Good Fun!

hogwash... other than the last point which is not only what we already stated 'bove, but has repeated ad nauseum-- legal ≠ right. however, "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" state of nature don't have laws and that is where those with power is able to most egregious exploit the weak. sure, the rich is best positioned to exploit law, but too many people have the situation reversed. is not the powerful who need law but rather is the weak. legal is indeed often an excuse for cowardly exploitation, but absence o' law makes such exploitation assured save in extreme small scale scenarios such as family and tribal. am also observing how the US has most prospered as we get further removed from a reliance on cheap labor. is bass ackwards and self defeating that we still rely so much on many kinds o' labor as automation shoulda' replaced most such jobs by now. tell 1980s Gromnir we would still have living people working in US auto factories in 2025 other than to maintain the robots and we woulda handed you a copy o' megatrends. this country, and most western economies, has prospered as they moved towards high skilled and service-based. counter-intuitive, as "labor" needs has become increasing expensive, American fortunes has accelerated. also, the recent dock worker strike where the union strong-armed management into promising to not implement automation were in addition to being luddite asinine, it went a long way towards undermining the "exploitation" narrative. is a relative small % o' the US economy which genuine requires cheap labor, but that small % is nevertheless vital. am not suggesting amazon treats its workers fair or that manufacturing management in general isn't trying to maximize their quarterly report earnings by cutting corners, but some schnook who read marx for the first time in 2020 is in for rude reality shocks and the world economy ain't what it was... and never will be again. we worked roofing in the early 90s and back then there were white guys on the roof with us. today? even so, is many important jobs which functional require illegal immigrants, 'cause is no way to keep numerous industries running without people doing jobs americans simply will not do. food processing. residential construction. agriculture. etc. and yeah, tiny screw jobs need cheap foreign labor... and the 2025 US don't even have the capacity to do such jobs regardless o' a dollar amount, which is why the US shoulda' subsidized apple to develop such infrastructure in mexico instead o' china. if the US had spent money on developing mexico in partnership with companies like apple and others who instead spent money in china, many o' today's problems wouldn't exist... including the immigration issues. regardless, *insert eye roll here* should add to our bruce, sharp_one, comrade yellow, dark priest and lexx list. HA! Good Fun! ps if it makes you feel better, in ten years when the china labor/population situation gets real for people, am suspecting the global economy is in for some rough times, and unskilled/low-skilled labor is sudden gonna be in a historic strong position if only temporarily. so, huzzah! maybe in a decade the workers o' the world will finally have a chance to unite, but we wouldn't count on it even then as the demand for automation and ai will finally overcome to perpetual stoopid which is the nostalgia fantasy o' the highly paid US (or any other western economy) factory worker.

illegal immigration is actually a boon for the US, but no politician could ever admit it. illegals do jobs no american will do and they lower inflation in the process. illegals pay taxes without drawing on entitlements. illegals commit less crime than natural born citizens. etc. in 10 years when china is f'd 'cause o' their self-made population apocalypse, they is gonna need millions o' indian foreign workers if they don't wanna see their economy implode. most o' europe as well as japan and korea is facing similar issues but is gonna take a bit longer for the impacts to hit home-- not enough workers or consumers and an aging population bleeding a nation dry is a problem you address ten years ago. is a problem the US suffers from to a far less degree 'cause? illegal immigration. our population and birth rate ain't been dropping the same as most o' the eu... and far less severe than japan. and again, china is already complete f'd. the US never could have gotten increased birth rates, low-pay labor and an increased consumer base in the numbers needed through legal immigration. like it or not, and in spite o' some real short-term costs, illegal immigration is arguably one o' the USA's greatest advantages. however, illegal immigration is illegal... even if it ain't criminal. we pass laws through representative democratic process and it not matter if those laws is wise when we decide whether they is legal. being in the US undocumented, like were the case for elon musk, is illegal, and there is statutory punishments for such infractions. that said, there is a reason illegals do not get criminal trials for their deportations and it ain't cause they is non-citizens. illegal border crossing or overstaying a visa is a petty infraction, akin to a speeding ticket. 'cause the punishment don't include loss of liberty (imprisonment,) deportation proceedings fail to trigger sixth amendment protections... though try and explain to us how sending people to cecot avoids such; we dare anybody to try and explain. regardless, arresting those suspected o' illegal immigration is not illegal. the current ice efforts is clear designed to provoke and inflame, but the arrests themselves... maybe what ice is doing is wrong, but it ain't illegal. trump sending troops to california is illegal and wrong. btw, the government lies and misleads. a 413% increase in assault o' ice agents? why not say what were the assaults and how many were assaulted? notice the government didn't claim any ice agents were seriously injured yes? if a child grabs the sleeve o' an ice agent while the agent is arresting the child's parent, that counts as an assault. if a citizen husband attempts to embrace his undocumented wife while she is being arrested and he happens to touch an ice agent in the process, that is an assault. and btw, if there were a 500% increase in la ice arrests over the course o' the past week, then how much would you expect assaults on ice agents to increase over the same period if all other factors remained constant? of the 118 undocumented rounded up by ice at the time o' their press release, only five were gang members, and am gonna remind people that being a gang member is not in and of itself illegal. please note that a handful o' crimes committed by those apprehended by ice is listed, but nowhere does it mention how many people had criminal records. one? why not say the number of criminals unless it is a comical small number? so yeah, this ice operation were performative and likely meant to help with trump's sagging poll numbers, 'cause the truth o' the matter is that trump's base, and many other americans, approve o' bad things happening to the undocumented. however, what ice did, rounding up undocumented individuals, were not illegal. the thing is, if more democrats had gotten off their asses and voted in 2024, we wouldn't be in this situation in 2025, so am actual a bit less sympathetic than you might suspect. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/exploring-why-more-latinos-voted-for-trump-and-what-it-means-for-future-elections Geoff Bennett: There are people of faith who would wonder how you are able to look beyond Donald Trump's moral character, the felony convictions, the divisive rhetoric and cast your vote in support. Rev. Samuel Rodriguez: It's a legitimate question and something we have to discuss. And I put that right next to abortion demand without any restrictions, even in the late term, late-term abortion here versus character, tweets, rhetoric, personality and bravado. So I have to measure this. I have to measure government coming and intruding in how I raise my children versus character, rhetoric, tweets and bravado. So we measured it. Latinos measured it and went like — and many Latinos went, like, man, we don't like the guy. Many Latinos say, we don't like the guy, but his policies were amazing and his policies lined up with what I believe. And the Democratic Party sounds good, but the policies are counterintuitive to who I am as a Latino and as a Christian. Now, there may be, there may be an opportunity here. Let me explain. The policy of mass deportations, that policy is — it is controversial. I don't deny it. And what our understanding is mass deportations will take place regarding targeting primarily criminals, those that are involved in the terrorist activities. (Crosstalk) Geoff Bennett: Potentially, but the scale of what the Trump campaign has promised would likely extend beyond those undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crimes. So the question is, what does that mean for Latinos who live in mixed-status families or who are here legally, but are profiled and caught up in what could be this mass deportation effort? Rev. Samuel Rodriguez: Now, I could tell you right here to your audience, I would be the first one vociferously protesting if the administration comes after families that have been here 20, 25, 30 years, 15 years, God-fearing, hardworking, not living off government subsidies, whose children were born here. I will be the first one protesting, because that's not my understanding. And I can't disclose my conversations with the president-elect's team, but I can tell you that there have been multiple assurances from very powerful individuals to yours truly directly, regarding the targeted audiences. And we're talking about those involved in nefarious activities. So my understanding is that good, God-fearing, hardworking families that have been here for years, for years and are not living off government subsidies and whose children were born here, these families will not be targeted. I hope and pray that they adhere to — adhere to what they conveyed with yours truly regarding the mass deportation efforts. ... at least on twitter, we don't see mr. rodriguez's promised protests. a quick search reveals no news articles where he complains he were misled. nothing. most o' the protesters ain't complaining about the Constitutional issue which worries Gromnir. we know trump sent troops with the intent o' provoking a greater response and we see this move as yet another step towards overt authoritarianism, but that ain't what has people in the streets of la. ultimately, people are protesting 'cause when trump said he were gonna do mass deportations, not enough americans listened or believed. we dislike trump and his policies, but the folks we blame most for our current situation is all the democrats and independents who didn't vote, or who voted for trump 'cause o' the price of eggs, trans athletes and vaccine mandates... mandates which were imposed at the state and local level for chrissakes. Stephen Miller has set his sights on new targets to find undocumented migrants: Home Depot and 7-Eleven so ice goes out and legal does the bidding o' stephen miller who is implementing the policy goals trump promised during his campaign. for those only motivated to protest now, we got less sympathy. but again, sending troops to california is actual a different issue for us than the ice roundups. trump is clear exceeding authority granted to him by the Constitution, unless scotus once again goes ahead and invents a new trump authority which did not exist for the past 238 years. HA! Good Fun!

russia? bad hong kong? bad. united states? ... according to stephen miller, the above linked protest necessitates the involvement o' military troops? they lie. the terrible part is that maga knows trump and his minions lie. there was never $2 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse... wasn't even hundreds of billions. how many fired fed workers, maga faithful, learned they were perpetrating waste, fraud and abuse? there is no white genocide happening in south africa. tariffs won't make americans rich. that hurricane were never predicted to reach alabama. rubio and musk said nobody has died 'cause o' usaid cuts. lies. etc. maga knows they lie, but 'cause is a polarized tribal thing where you gotta defend us from them, maga types willingly and beyond all reason, believe and promote the next lie. as a rando example, a person who perhaps knows trump is lying about tariffs and white genocide in south africa, nevertheless contorts themselves into knots trying to convince the rest o' us that trump and stephen miller is telling the truth about los angeles. and again, “Indeed we can think of no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the national government and reposed in the states, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims.”-- J. Rehnquist, us v morrison (2000) in 2020, numerous states asked for help from the national guard. converse, the federal government cannot send troops to california, oregon, washington or illinois to do ordinary law enforcement. however, those states is gonna need go through the courts to get relief, which is gonna take time... and perhaps when the Court final addresses the issue, some catastrophe sparked by the presence o' national guard troops will have already occurred, at which point trump will invoke the insurrection act. regardless, even if there were chaos happening in los angeles, real widespread l007ing and property destruction, the fed couldn't send troops unless the states asked for aid. it's a law thing. it's the freaking Constitution. repeat: "ordinarily it is up to the states to decide whether to request fed troop assistance. is extreme few recent examples o' the fed not responding to state requests and sending in troops and the only post ww 2 examples we can think o' off hand is when Presidents sent troops to the south to protect school kids post brown v. board o' education, or when they ordered military to protect protesters from state governments related to mlk assassination, the aforementioned brown v. board and the civil rights act legislation." another repeat for those curious refusing to pay attention... what trump is doing is unconstitutional, but illegal, immoral or unthinkable don't prevent him from doing it. why is this not penetrating? HA! Good Fun!

frontline does good work. HA! Good Fun!

for those interested in the law, The National Guard in Los Angeles "We are told that the president has authorized National Guard personnel to “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur.” This phrasing of the mission is nearly identical to the text of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memo, which stands for the modern executive branch understanding of the protective power." extreme limited. however, as local law enforcement is aware that the presence o' troops, as often as not, exacerbates protests rather than quells 'em, which is why state officials is so reluctant to send in troops. many law and order people wonder why local law enforcement tends to stand idly by while "riots" happen, but the prudent response is to do less. sure, the post mortems after a riot-that-got-out-of-hand invariably condemn local law enforcement for not acting sooner to crack skulls and make arrests, but initial cop reluctance in the face o' protests is the reasonable course o' action. once cops make a show o' force, or troops get involved, there will be an accident which will at least initial inflame the protests. predictable. near inevitable. is why govenors is reluctant to call in troops and am suspecting it is exact why trump and stephen miller is so eager to see boots on the ground. aside, federal troops only just showed up within the last hour, but to call what has occurred thus far "riots" is a bit hyperbolic... much as happened in the summer o' 2020. the largest concentration o' protesters thus far has been estimated at about 100--1 car burned and another car vandalized. law enforcement officers were attacked receiving minor injuries. compared to a philadelphia sports team winning a national title, this has been kinda tame thus far. those who attack law enforcement who is lawful executing their duties should be prosecuted. period. however, such has nothing to do with sending in the national guard. again, the examples o' a President sending in federal troops to quell violence anywhere but fed property when state officials did not request military aid is extreme limited and is so not like a few 2020 examples when governors requested federal support. “Indeed we can think of no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the national government and reposed in the states, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims.”-- J. Rehnquist, us v morrison (2000) regardless, the authority being granted to fed troops is extreme limited, so for the moment this is mostly a performative action meant to trigger the libs... right up until the federal presence results in an escalation o' violence. maybe such escalation won't happen this time, but if this is the new normal, eventual there will be an accident or event which results in catastrophe. such an eventuality is part o' the plan. HA! Good Fun!