1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

The USA was never going invade Greenland, that was just the expected sensationalism and SM drama with this story.

Just as Russia would never invade Ukraine, that's just sensationalism.

Hindsight and all. It's not going to happen until it suddenly happens. Nobody is opposing the demented raping grandpa and I wouldn't bet on his rich buddies to be able to hold him back if necessary. 

5 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

That would be classic Trump "negotiating" at work: rip up the agreement we had, bluster and threaten, get the same deal or a little better or maybe even a little worse (at the cost of a lot of good will), announce to the world how brilliant he is and that he got what he wanted.

trump's most successful diplomatic and trade efforts is tacoing.

tariffs is most noteworthy for trump delays, exceptions and implementation fails. ukraine had to compromise by thanksgiving... but maybe he meant next thanksgiving? am suspecting the new greenland deal is gonna be near indistinguishable from the old greenland deal, which is good news for everybody.  etc.

the problem is that trump is unlikely to taco if the bond market fails to react. blowing up boats in the caribbean didn't move the needle and so trump decided a coup would be a fun thing to do in venezuela.

regardless, this "concept o' a deal" 'tween nato and trump is a real life application o' sun tzu's advice: build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.

am thinking the nobel committee should keep a medal for trump in their pocket just in case it looks as if the very stable genius is about to start ww3.

...

we got at least three more years o' this insanity. 

HA! Good Fun!

https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-charter-of-trumps-board-of-peace/

Charter for this UN replacement Trump wants.  Seems like corruption 

Bored of Peace countries

I don't believe those countries paid 1 billion to Trump when joining. 

5 hours ago, HoonDing said:

Bored of Peace countries

 

16 hours ago, Lexx said:

I don't believe those countries paid 1 billion to Trump when joining. 

" The board of peace " ..what a joke

Have you seen the countries that are on the board 

I am prepared to make prediction, they will come up with ideas for Gaza peace that have already been discussed but not implemented and they will achieve nothing substantive in other conflicts

And once Trump is no longer president it will collapse into obscurity, like it never existed 

Edited January 23Jan 23 by BruceVC

They already have a rebuilding plan for Gaza, which is kinda disgusting, imo. They genocided the crap out of the place, bombed everything to rubble and now they are finally able to build their own paradise on top of it. 

His new golf course with its exclusive members?

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

" The board of peace " ..what a joke

Have you seen the countries that are on the board 

I am prepared to make prediction, they will come up with ideas for Gaza peace that have already been discussed but not implemented and they will achieve nothing substantive in other conflicts

And once Trump is no longer president it will collapse into obscurity, like it never existed 

It includes DJT-flatterers Argentina, Hungary, and Qatar, but excludes Canada? Definitely a laughable "institution". Most European nations declined to join, which tells you something. Bored of Peace indeed.

35 minutes ago, rjshae said:

It includes DJT-flatterers Argentina, Hungary, and Qatar, but excludes Canada? Definitely a laughable "institution". Most European nations declined to join, which tells you something. Bored of Peace indeed.

I find it quite funny that both Germany and Italy said that they would like to join but their constitutions forbid them to join because of the rules of the board, taking account how current constitutions of those countries were written.

It would have partly redeemed the Board of Peace if they'd livestreamed Netanyahu's reaction to Turkey/ UAE/ Pakistan and Qatar being members.

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

I find it quite funny that both Germany and Italy said that they would like to join but their constitutions forbid them to join because of the rules of the board, taking account how current constitutions of those countries were written.

One suspects they're happy to have an excuse to decline more than anything.

I suspect the Prime Minister here for one wishes he had such an excuse, or that the White House map had left us off it so no decision would have to be made. 

On 1/20/2026 at 11:55 AM, Gromnir said:

once again, you posted a bunch o' quotes, without links or attribution. naughty.

You were told how they were found, it's easily replicable by anyone with the most basic internet skills. It literally literally takes five seconds. Fact. 

We both know it isn't misrepresentation, and the quotes are real. Again, that's not opinion, it's fact. From the later parts it appears you don't actually know how to use a search engine properly though (<--this is opinion). There are a shedload of Pahlavi stories about the TV hacking. Took me 5s to find them. Fact; fact.

Quote

counting on most people to be unaware when you fib or expecting 'em not to go through the effort o' checking your sources is your schtick.

Just repeating stuff ad nauseum when you've lost is most definitely yours, as is posting multiple theses length replies in the hope of boring people to death. 

Quoting what the purpose of a lede is, then insisting that actually the quotes I took weren't the author's main points or part of a summary is certainly one of your more... interesting takes. As a matter of fact, you're wrong about that; and it's a bit sad that that is just one of your more... unique takes rather than the most.

3 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

You were told how they were found, it's easily replicable by anyone with the most basic internet skills. It literally literally takes five seconds. Fact. 

We both know it isn't misrepresentation, and the quotes are real. Again, that's not opinion, it's fact. From the later parts it appears you don't actually know how to use a search engine properly though (<--this is opinion). There are a shedload of Pahlavi stories about the TV hacking. Took me 5s to find them. Fact; fact.

so, still focusing on the sophistry you complained 'bout? color us not surprised. hypocritical and deceptive.

telling us you used a search engine is not linking and is not meaningful attribution. you quoted grammerly as a source and grammerly made extreme clear why you should include attribution and links. "Remember to attribute your quotes properly to maintain transparency and build trust with your audience. Make sure the source is clear, and use their exact words to avoid misrepresentation." you are the joker who observed earlier that people rare read beyond the first paragraph or two as some kinda lazy-arsed defense o' your own lazy-arsed search engine efforts. ("Every single quote I picked was in the first few lines of the articles. Most (all but one?) of them were in the lead or second paragraph. ie the part people actually read, and which gets summarised by search engines.") but failure to link and attribute makes it far less likely people will catch your deceit, yes? 

and we both know it is misrepresentation; "you're wrong about that."  is why we did link the stories you failed to attribute and shared the conclusions and analysis from the stories which made clear the equivocation and ambivalence o' the authors regarding the significance o' pahlavi. we also revealed qualitative same quotes from al jazeera, which kinda undercuts your complaint o' some kinda western skew.

oh, and if we put words into a search engine and it provides a long list o' results, it don't mean that western media is making efforts to "embiggen" whatever it is we were searching.

duh

on same day you did your mindless search engine population, you coulda' gone instead with madonna + iran and seen dozens o' results. seems you don't know how to use a search engine after all. again, do a search for iran + protests and see how frequent you get results for pahlavi in headline and ledes. if the west were so hot to embiggen, would we not see pahlavi showing up in ledes and headlines o' the foremost returns? using an anonymous search, so as to avoid algorithm issues, we again did a search today for iran + protests and get zero results for pahlavi in the ledes and headlines produced in the first sixty western stories. of course if you do a targeted search for pahlavi, you will generate numerous results, but the mere existence o' results will often be misleading. unless you are specific searching for pahlavi, there is a good chance you would see him as irrelevant, 'cause he is getting only the most infrequent mentions in the headlines and ledes o' western news stories regarding the iranian protests. again, you were the guy stressing how little o' articles people read as some kinda defense o' your sloth and decption.

oh and again, the first paragraph o' a story is not "always a summary" as you claimed. heck, the first paragraph don't always include a summary lede, which is not but a hook + essential facts. your grammerly link didn't say what you claim it did any more than your mindless quote list, but since you put so much in search engine results...

ai result from google for "summary of a news article:

 A summary of a news article is a concise, objective overview that captures the central message and key facts of the original story without including personal opinions.  

Core Elements of a News Summary
An effective summary typically addresses the "5 Ws and H" to provide a complete picture of the event: 
Who: The primary people, groups, or organizations involved.
What: The central event, topic, or main conflict.
Where: The specific location where the event occurred.
When: The timing or date of the events.
Why: The reason, cause, or purpose behind the event.
How: The process or methods described in the story. 

Essential Steps for Writing
Survey the Article: Read the headline and the first paragraph (the "lede") first, as these often contain the most critical information.

Identify Main Points: Note the author's thesis or main claim and the major arguments or evidence supporting it.

Draft in Your Own Words: Write the summary using your own phrasing to avoid plagiarism, typically keeping it to about one-third the length of the original article.

Acknowledge the Source: Begin by identifying the article's title, author, and publication in the first sentence.

Maintain Objectivity: Stick to the facts presented in the text and avoid adding your own analysis or critique. 
Structure of a Summary

Introduction: A single sentence introducing the article and its main argument.

Body: A series of sentences explaining each supporting point in the same order as the original article.

Conclusion: A final statement that summarizes the thesis and explains the overall significance or implications of the story. 
 

your search engine generated quotes, which you failed to link and attribute, (naughty) typical weren't even fulfilling the requirements o' summary ledes as described by grammerly, but nowhere near reaching the level o' meaningful summaries. your primary school edumactaion were lacking if you believe your mindless search population results were meaningful summaries, but we do not believe you are so ignorant... 'bout summaries.

clown show shenanigans, but please, don't stop.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

and

Not opening the door to ICE may no longer stop officers

Most immigration arrests have been carried out under administrative warrants, documents issued by immigration authorities that authorize an arrest. Traditionally they do not permit officers to enter private spaces without consent. Only warrants signed by independent judges have carried that authority.

there is no basis for dhs creating new authority for law enforcement. claiming it is proper to keep relying on administrative warrants 'cause o' some kinda self granted power ginned up in a dhs memo is something jd vances knows is not Constitutional. nevertheless, am having little doubt feds will continue to enter homes/residences up until scotus tells 'em they cannot do so.

how many people were sent out o' the US before scotus said there needs be some kinda due process review? once those people were out o' the US, as a practical and legal matter, courts could not force the US to bring those improperly "deported" persons back to the US. 

scotus has been using the shadow docket to undermine lower court TROs without providing rationales for overturning district and appellate courts. as far as we can tell, the scotus majority has decided that only scotus has the authority to enjoin the executive branch... although am needing mention the curious lisa cook exception.

Since Trump took office last year, the court – on its interim docket – has allowed him to remove members of the National Labor Relations Board, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The justices also heard arguments in December in the case of Rebecca Slaughter, a member of the Federal Trade Commission whom Trump fired in March. They are expected to decide by summer whether a federal law that bars him from removing members of the FTC except in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” violates the constitutional separation of powers.

explain why a fed appointee is legal different than an ftc board appointee is difficult 'cause scotus has provided no explanation. 

however, if scotus treats the dhs memo authority same as most other fed actions, it could be a long time before they get around to telling vance that administrative warrants don't fulfill 4th amendment requirements. how many US residents get "deported" before scotus decides to observe that water is wet and ice is cold... although following the Presidential immunity case, am no longer certain what constitutes legal unthinkable for this Court.

...

sure this is wrong, but kamala harris woulda' done... something.

HA! Good Fun! 

Edited January 24Jan 24 by Gromnir

Well Trump's ticked off people with comments on NATO troops. For Canada it's funny as I think the most damaging event Canadian troops had was being bombed by US planes.  Pilots walked away scot free too, funny that. 

 

Trump's Board of Peace requires nations pay $1 billion for permanent membership

Supposedly that payment goes directly into Trump's pocket, not the US government. Can you say emoluments? I knew you could.

Luckily corruption is ok as long as you don't hide it. 

The cabinet members and official accounts are tweeting Trump with penguins, they're running low on flashbangs from Epstein I guess

Edited January 24Jan 24 by Malcador

13 hours ago, rjshae said:

It includes DJT-flatterers Argentina, Hungary, and Qatar, but excludes Canada? Definitely a laughable "institution". Most European nations declined to join, which tells you something. Bored of Peace indeed.

Russia was going to join but only because of a translation problem,  they thought it was called the " board of pieces " 

But on a serious note, Trump thinks this will somehow create an alternative to the UNSC and how it often "fails " to agree on creating solutions to wars

But this is because of the veto which is actually necessary and of course the US itself is guilty of using the veto when its suits them 

Any serious new global initiative to end wars  without most Western counties being part of it is doomed to fail

 

1 hour ago, HoonDing said:

Normally that would be a kvajebajer (you are expected to buy a round of beer because you screwed up) but kvajekage (cake instead of beer) works too I suppose 😝

 

I took this picture in a local supermarket. any resemblance to real people is purely coincidental

clarification:

as vulgar as this is, it is legal... for now. a domestic terrorist database created by collecting public available and non-private information, is not prohibited by law.

unless and until there is a specific Congressional law prohibiting government databases created by collecting public available and non-private information, we gotta rely on scotus decisions to articulate the scope o' privacy contemplated by the Constitution. scotus Justices is tending to be luddites--not only are they old, but their job is to see patterns in the law by looking backwards (oftentimes centuries) in search o' meaningful legal precedent. also, acknowledging that the US Constitution don't specific mention privacy, the Court is reluctant to push further the boundaries o' a penumbral fundamental right.

use domestic terrorist to label a database which includes peaceful protesters exercising their first amendment rights should be political and moral repugnant, but it isn't illegal... yet. until such a time the label becomes material in a case or controversy, until a person is denied a government benefit or legal protection 'cause o' their existence in the domestic terrorist database, the courts don't have any kinda power to require the dissolution o' such a database. am assuming a pre 2024 Court would put the kibosh on a domestic terrorist database that were used to deny rights and privileges to those who did exercise their First Amendment rights, but...

HA! Good Fun!

 

https://x.com/EricLeeAtty/status/2015087821376073908

Not sure why they needed to shoot him with all the guys on him, but cops can be meatheads.

But ICE aren't cops.