[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Cause, on 07 May 2025 - 03:55 PM, said:

Trump announced yesterday that he had big news regarding the middle east and that it would be very postive. I thought surely this man is about to do somethign monumentally stupid. Instead today he announced the US will start calling the persian gulf the arabian gulf.

This fascinates me for two reasons, he couldnt bottle it up for even 24 hours and this is news? Who cares?

He didn't actually say that was the announcement did he? And he didn't specify that it would even have anything to do with the Middle East.

Just that it would be "truly earth-shattering"... and "not about trade":

Quote

"We're going to have a very, very big announcement to make, like as big as it gets," Trump said. "And I won't tell you on what … and it's very positive. It is really, really positive. It'll be one of the most important announcements that have been made in many years about a certain subject, very important subject. So you'll all be here." [....] Trump added the announcement was "not about trade" and that "it is going to be a truly earth-shattering and positive development for our country." Trump will travel to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates next week.

https://www.thedaily...g-announcement/

Granted, he'll probably be in the Middle East when the announcement is made, so it would make sense for it to have something to do with the Middle East.

Finalizing his plan to have the United States "take over" Gaza and turn it into a tourist resort after all the Palestinians there starve to death or get relocated to Alcatraz, El Salvador, or North Korea?... Or perhaps sent to work the mines in Greenland after we "acquire" that territory too?


[Edit: what are the odds Trump says, "we're invading Canada... just kidding! Actually, Greenland."]

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 07 May 2025 - 04:25 PM

[Cause]

Azath Vitr (D, on 07 May 2025 - 04:23 PM, said:

Cause, on 07 May 2025 - 03:55 PM, said:

Trump announced yesterday that he had big news regarding the middle east and that it would be very postive. I thought surely this man is about to do somethign monumentally stupid. Instead today he announced the US will start calling the persian gulf the arabian gulf.

This fascinates me for two reasons, he couldnt bottle it up for even 24 hours and this is news? Who cares?

He didn't actually say that was the announcement did he? And he didn't specify that it would even have anything to do with the Middle East.

Just that it would be "truly earth-shattering"... and "not about trade":

Quote

"We're going to have a very, very big announcement to make, like as big as it gets," Trump said. "And I won't tell you on what … and it's very positive. It is really, really positive. It'll be one of the most important announcements that have been made in many years about a certain subject, very important subject. So you'll all be here." [....] Trump added the announcement was "not about trade" and that "it is going to be a truly earth-shattering and positive development for our country." Trump will travel to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates next week.

https://www.thedaily...g-announcement/

Granted, he'll probably be in the Middle East when the announcement is made, so it would make sense for it to have something to do with the Middle East.

Finalizing his plan to have the United States "take over" Gaza and turn it into a tourist resort after all the Palestinians there starve to death or get relocated to Alcatraz, El Salvador, or North Korea?... Or perhaps sent to work the mines in Greenland after we "acquire" that territory too?


[Edit: what are the odds Trump says, "we're invading Canada... just kidding! Actually, Greenland."]

He got cold feet about the Houthis, I dont think he is gonna double down about gaza.

[Cause]

All the reporting so far about Qatar possibly gifting Trump the next Air Force one has focused on the blatant corruption. Fair enough.

However surely it’s a massive security risk? I’m sure it would be searched end to end more than once but surely there is a risk of listening devices? Explosives?

[Lady Bliss]

So white refugees are welcome but we don’t want the brown ones?
https://www.cbsnews....states-arrival/

[Macros]

This surprises anyone?

There's half a million Europeans living illegally in the US at any given point, stealing jobs and not declaring taxes.
Why aren't they being dragged off in chains?

Oh wait......

[Cause]

Lady Bliss, on 11 May 2025 - 09:25 PM, said:

So white refugees are welcome but we don’t want the brown ones?
https://www.cbsnews....states-arrival/

The best and brightest of South Africa I assure.

_____________________________________________________

Do I understand it correctly tthat the US goverment ran around like crazy only for us to end back at the starting point of the US-China Tarriff situation?

This post has been edited by Cause: 12 May 2025 - 03:56 PM

[Macros]

Don't worry

All part of the biggly plan to get everyone to sign trade deals.

Worst of it is people will swallow this shambles as a win for the US, the art of the deal.

Every single one of the countries you fucked will 100% make a deal with you.
They will also be securing trade deals everywhere else to reduce US influence in world trade and dependence on a totally unstable democracy.
Ultimately no matter what deals are signed this was a lose lose

[the broken]

Cause, on 12 May 2025 - 03:54 PM, said:

_____________________________________________________

Do I understand it correctly tthat the US goverment ran around like crazy only for us to end back at the starting point of the US-China Tarriff situation?

No, de minimis is still gone and the tariff is 30pc, not 10.

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 12 May 2025 - 03:54 PM, said:

Do I understand it correctly tthat the US goverment ran around like crazy only for us to end back at the starting point of the US-China Tarriff situation?

Yes. This is exactly what happened, and he will call this a win, and so will all of the R sycophants on TV.

Insane. But the USA isn't a serious country anymore and hasn't been in a while, so the whole thing is satire at this point.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Cause, on 11 May 2025 - 08:26 PM, said:

All the reporting so far about Qatar possibly gifting Trump the next Air Force one has focused on the blatant corruption. Fair enough.

However surely it's a massive security risk? I'm sure it would be searched end to end more than once but surely there is a risk of listening devices? Explosives?

Quote

"The idea of getting it from a foreign government, you literally would have to tear it apart piece by piece," [...] acquiring this 747 isn't cost-effective because it will be expensive for the government and military to retrofit the aircraft to bring the plane up to the necessary standards.

"I suppose you can, but basically, you're building a whole new plane," [...]

[...] risks include sabotage to the 747's mechanical or operational features, tracking of the aircraft, and any surveillance through audio or video recording devices.

[...] "I could be a stupid person and say, 'No, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane," [Trump] said.

A free plane? Trump's Air Force One plan could be an expensive 'security nightmare.' - Business Insider

.

Quote

The aircraft would have to be torn down and rebuilt to install secure presidential communication lines, self-defense technology, and electromagnetic shielding. Former Air Force acquisitions chief Andrew Hunter told Politico that retrofitting costs would likely fall "in the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars."

Hunter said sweeping the Qatari-gifted jet for software modifications or embedded technology would incur an additional fee: "That's not a trivial thing to do. That alone would cost tens of millions of dollars."

Trump's 'Free' Plane From Qatar Will Still Cost Taxpayers a Fortune - The Daily Beast

[Macros]

Also, hes keeping it after his presidency?
but not a bribe........

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Macros, on 13 May 2025 - 06:36 PM, said:

Also, hes keeping it after his presidency?
but not a bribe........

He claims he'll donate it to the Trump presidential library. (Trump the First, that is... and perhaps Trump the Last (President... and first immortal cyber-emperor...).)

First presidential library that will fly around the world, hawking gilded Trump Bibles (in exchange for Trumpcoin)?... Who needs the Lincoln bedroom when you can have orgies over the clouds in his flying palace? #LibrariesAreCommunityHubs

[Tsundoku]

I'm sure each country has their own version of these, but maybe the penny is finally dropping for Americans as they learn the hard way what that "beautiful word - Tariff" means.

US woman fires up at $300 fee after Glassons order as Aussies defend the brand
A US woman has fired up after copping a $300 fee after ordering from an Australian site – but her rant has been met with little sympathy from Aussies.

https://www.news.com...9573b7b8965cfee

[JPK]

Not a fan of stapling it on after checkout, but I hope to see more of this happening. I suspect it's what the average American needs to finally break that "economies are better under republicans" myth that keeps coming around. I saw so many people talking during election season about how much better off they were under Trump's first term than Biden's. I want to see enough of this that people never forget how much more damage Trump does to their personal pocketbooks.

[Cause]

Reality is now indistinguishable from the Onion.

Former head of the FBI James Comey is to be investigated for supposedly calling for the assignation of President Trump through seashells that spelled 8647.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

 Cause, on 16 May 2025 - 04:52 PM, said:

Reality is now indistinguishable from the Onion.

Former head of the FBI James Comey is to be investigated for supposedly calling for the assignation of President Trump through seashells that spelled 8647.

That means he's in MS-13! And eats sliced babies on pizza for Satan!

Donald Trump Jr.:

Quote

"James Comey causally calling for my dad to be murdered."

Would that he could causally call for it... or dance for it. Dance of acid rain and guillotines?...

[Tsundoku]

Pretty sure to "86" something means to get rid of it, or stop doing whatever it is. Not necessarily kill (as in murder) it.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 16 May 2025 - 10:43 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Robert Reich on a provision snuck into the tax bill that just passed in the House:

Quote

There's a hidden provision in that big ugly bill that makes Trump king

What can the courts do in response to Trump's open defiance of the judges and justices?

The courts have one power to make their orders stick: holding federal officials in contempt and enforcing such contempt citations against them.

Enforcing a contempt citation means fining or jailing the Trump lawyers who argue before them, and possibly invoking contempt all the way up the line to Trump.

[From the bill:] "No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued…."
Translated: No federal court may enforce a contempt citation.

Obviously, courts need appropriated funds to do anything because Congress appropriates money to enable the courts to function. To require a security or bond to be given in civil proceedings seeking to stop alleged abuses by the federal government would effectively immunize such conduct from judicial review because those seeking such court orders generally don't have the resources to post a bond.

As U.C. Berkeley School of Law Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law Erwin Chemerinsky notes, [...] "Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored. [...] The Supreme Court has long recognized that the contempt power is integral to the authority of the federal courts. Without the ability to enforce judicial orders, they are rendered mere advisory opinions which parties are free to disregard."

https://www.alternet...rump-bill-king/

Berkeley Law professor Chemerinsky explains it more clearly:

Quote

this provision is meant to limit the power of federal courts to use their contempt power. It does so by relying on a relatively rarely used provision of the Rules that govern civil cases in federal court. Rule 65© says that judges may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order "only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained."

[...] But federal courts understandably rarely require that a bond be posted by those who are restraining unconstitutional federal, state, or local government actions. Those seeking such court orders generally do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review. It always has been understood that courts can choose to set the bond at zero.

[...] the provision in the House bill would make the court orders in these cases completely unenforceable. Indeed, the bill is stunning in its scope. It would apply to all temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and even permanent injunctions ever issued. By its terms, it applies to court orders "issued prior to, on, or subsequent" to its adoption.

Because federal courts rarely have required plaintiffs to post bonds, it would mean that hundreds and hundreds of court orders – in cases ranging from antitrust to protection of private tax information, to safeguarding the social security administration, to school desegregation to police reform – would be rendered unenforceable. Even when the government had been found to violate the Constitution, nothing could be done to enforce the injunctions against it. In fact, the greatest effect of adopting the provision would be to make countless existing judicial orders unenforceable. If enacted, judges will be able to set the bond at $1 so it can be easily met. But all existing judicial orders where no bond was required would become unenforceable.

https://www.justsecu...contempt-court/

So a very large number of past court orders will be rendered unenforceable. It's not clear whether it would necessarily affect new cases---assuming the amount of the bond is not subject to appeal on grounds of not being adequate to "pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained", as the law professor appears to, would imply that it could be negligible for future cases... and the Senate is too divided for a mass purge of the current judiciary to pack the courts with Trump/MAGA loyalists. Unless they're slaughtered en masse, of course....

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Quote

Trump administration ends Harvard's ability to enrol international students

[...] "Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country," [Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem] wrote on X

[...] Over 6,700 international students were enrolled at the institution last academic year, university data shows, making up 27% of its student body.

[... students] would have to transfer to other universities to maintain legal status

https://www.bbc.com/...es/c05768jmm11o

And FDA approval for covid boosters is now going to be limited to people over 65 or with a narrow list of specific risk factors---though hopefully pharmacies will still allow people not in those categories to get the boosters, insurance companies won't be obligated to pay for them and almost certainly won't. Last year's boosters were around $200 / shot.

I used to vape, back before it was categorized as tobacco use, and "former smokers" are on the list---but not alcoholics or former alcoholics (I doubt that alcohol would be counted under "other immunosuppressive medications"):

https://www.nejm.org...6/NEJMsb2506929

But if I say I'm a former smoker the insurance company might still refuse, since I never indicated that on a form before. The fact that vaping wasn't clearly considered "tobacco use" should be a valid excuse. Still I'd guess there's a good chance they'll say no.

And local pharmacies might not be willing to provide it for people who don't qualify, especially if they only have a limited supply.

In which case I may have to take up smoking in order to get the booster. Brilliant public health policy. Because that way health insurance companies can legally charge me 50% more / month.

RFK Jr said during his confirmation hearing that he wouldn't be taking away anyone's vaccines... well surprise surprise.

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 23 May 2025 - 11:53 AM, said:

Quote

Trump administration ends Harvard's ability to enrol international students

[...] "Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country," [Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem] wrote on X

[...] Over 6,700 international students were enrolled at the institution last academic year, university data shows, making up 27% of its student body.

[... students] would have to transfer to other universities to maintain legal status

https://www.bbc.com/...es/c05768jmm11o

And FDA approval for covid boosters is now going to be limited to people over 65 or with a narrow list of specific risk factors---though hopefully pharmacies will still allow people not in those categories to get the boosters, insurance companies won't be obligated to pay for them and almost certainly won't. Last year's boosters were around $200 / shot.

I used to vape, back before it was categorized as tobacco use, and "former smokers" are on the list---but not alcoholics or former alcoholics (I doubt that alcohol would be counted under "other immunosuppressive medications"):

https://www.nejm.org...6/NEJMsb2506929

But if I say I'm a former smoker the insurance company might still refuse, since I never indicated that on a form before. The fact that vaping wasn't clearly considered "tobacco use" should be a valid excuse. Still I'd guess there's a good chance they'll say no.

And local pharmacies might not be willing to provide it for people who don't qualify, especially if they only have a limited supply.

In which case I may have to take up smoking in order to get the booster. Brilliant public health policy. Because that way health insurance companies can legally charge me 50% more / month.

RFK Jr said during his confirmation hearing that he wouldn't be taking away anyone's vaccines... well surprise surprise.

It will never not blow my mind that preventative vaccines like this cost money and have strict regulations in the States....like they do a collective good that keeps the economy functioning well if things get out of hand virus-wise in a given year....In Canada I've had something like 7 covid vaccines/boosters in the last 5 years, and have not paid for any of them...and should you ever want one, you just need to ask your family doctor and they will usually have them on hand to administer. My family doc checks every time I go if it's been long enough since the last one to get the new one for that season. It feels so backwards to have to pay $200 for that...