So, do I sell because he'll keep wrecking the economy, or do I hold because he'll keep backing down? What do the licensed financial advisors here, acting in their professional capacity and accepting full legal responsibility for the consequences, think?
I think this is not a straightforward case as a matter of law, even though it is as a matter of justice. Generally, a court couldn't reasonably order the US government to exfiltrate a person from a prison in a foreign country (even if he was there as a result of US government wrongdoing). This case is different because when the US government is paying the foreign country to keep that person in prison, the reasons why such an order would generally be unreasonable don't apply.
The question is, where do you draw the line between the general case and this specific case? What if, for example, El Salvador decides to do what presumably makes Trump happy rather than what he's being ordered to ask for, and refuses to free this man despite an official request from the US? Can a court decide that the US needs to try harder? What if El Salvador stubbornly keeps refusing?
We all know that this man would be back in the US if Trump wanted him back in the US, but how do you prove that?
Here’s the broader situation: 30 percent of American households are classified by Pew as low income, and 19 percent are upper income. And yet a 2024 Gallup survey found that only 12 percent of Americans identified themselves as “lower class” and just 2 percent as “upper class.” In short: No one wants to be perceived as poor, and no one rich ever feels rich enough.
This is just nonsense. Being in the upper class doesn't mean being in the top 19% of earners. Those 19% are middle class and they probably have never even interacted with anyone in the upper class. An upper-class person isn't someone who earns a $100k a year or even $1000k a year. In fact, he probably doesn't even have a job. CBS has a headline right now that says "Trump headlining $1 million a person super PAC dinner as stocks sink over tariffs". The people at his dinner (or the ones who could come but choose not to) are in the upper class.
Edit: As for the rest of the article, it makes a good point about the disconnect between the working class and the middle class, but I'm not sure that this disconnect is bigger now than it used to be.
Edit 2: Part of the disconnect is due to different values rather than different incomes, and this should be emphasized because Trump is popular with the working class (and unpopular with the middle class) not because he doesn't have much money but because he rejects middle-class values.
I'm not sure that's possible because the Democratic platform doesn't have the sort of populist appeal that Trump's Republican platform does. Moderation can't compete with extremism in this domain. I suppose that the Democrats could try to pivot to their own (presumably class-based) form of populism but, at least from my point of view, one very strong reason to support the Democrats is because they aren't populist. Having one populist party versus another would be a lose/lose situation.
I don't have an alternate proposal. It may actually be the case that social media will eventually force every serious political movement to pivot towards populism and create its own truth in order to be competitive, but then who would make the policy decisions in a world of meme warfare?
After the tariffs were unveiled in front of TV cameras at the White House, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told those countries named: "Do not retaliate, sit back, take it in, let's see how it goes, because, if you retaliate, there will be escalation."
I'm sure that went over well. Xi loves sitting back and taking it in, especially when this is on Trump's mind:
"'Oh, he used the word 'rape.' That's right. I used the word 'rape,'" Trump said at the Detroit Economic Club after his remarks were met with what sounded like some gasps from the audience. "They raped our country," he repeated.
I'm curious about how well-informed most Americans are about the Soviet Union. Do they know that it was once a place where ordinary people were accused of crimes without evidence, taken away without a trial, and never seen again? Do they know that this generally happened because of the smallest suspicion that a person was not fanatically loyal to the government, rather than a violent criminal? Do they know that a million people were killed this way? And do they know that the Soviet Union was one of many places like that?
I expect that the Soviet Union doesn't seem particularly relevant to younger generations of voters, but isn't this the sort of lurid history that did interest them as adolescents? And don't older voters remember the Cold War?
Titled “The Perimeter” and published on Monday, the report said the stated purpose of the plan was to create a thick strip of land that provided a clear line of sight for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to identify and kill militants. “This space was to have no crops, structures, or people. Almost every object, infrastructure installation, and structure within the perimeter was demolished,” it said.
The article presents this as a new revelation, but wasn't creating a wider buffer zone on the Gaza side of the border one of the explicitly stated war goals? (And visible from space.) I'm surprised that there isn't signage and barbed wire to prevent civilians from wandering in accidentally, but the rest seems to be describing what a buffer zone (or "kill zone") is almost by definition.
I am not a lawyer, but I think that presenting the defendants' case as written in their memorandum would not be lying, although I can see how doing so would make an honest man uncomfortable. Reuveni supported the morally right side when, in effect, he argued for the plaintiffs, but in doing so he failed to fulfill a lawyer's obligation to zealously defend his client. If he wanted to do both, he should have declined to take the case in the first place (although presumably he would have been demoted or fired for that too).
With that said, a man can do the right thing now even when he could have done so earlier and didn't (and doing so in court was certainly more dramatic than refusing to take the case would have been). I wouldn't mind donating money to him the way that people of a different sort donated money to Daniel Penny.
I'm not sure how to reconcile my view with the principle that even the worst criminal defendants have the right to competent legal representation. I suppose I make an exception here because the federal government is never in danger of being railroaded.
Thank you, but don't mind me. I just had multiple tabs open and accidentally replied to the wrong post.
I did think the answer from jms21y in the screenshot was interesting. Years ago, before Reddit existed, I used to post on a message board where there was a great deal of diversity and still people were polite to each other - the rules were strict about that. There were also only several dozen active participants so we all knew each other. Anyway, one of the regulars was an active-duty military guy and his perspective was often very interesting. I think the ideological range of the people I talked to has become so much narrower since then. People (including me) are so much angrier now than even during the GWB presidency.
I don't think that's how people would have "gathered for instructions on an attack" especially when "attack" would mean launching missiles. But I'm glad that
and we can trust Laura Loomer to handle the sort of intelligence gathering that would guide strikes like this.
Obviously the judge can't order the dead raised, but if El Salvador won't release him then does the judge have the authority to decide whether or not Trump made a good-faith attempt to have him released? I don't think anyone knows at this point. It's clear to all that Trump could in fact have him released (or at least have his body returned if he has been killed) so what happens if Trump says that he tried and El Salvador said no? Will the judge accept Trump's transparent lie, or will he risk creating a Constitutional crisis that Trump would probably win?
I'm not optimistic. I don't think the American system of government is capable of handling the executive branch along with a majority of the legislative branch acting in bad faith with the support of a large part of the public.
I was thinking more of the Orz. They're inspired by the original cosmic horror, but they like campers as long as campers want to party with them.
That is funny. You think you see Orz but Orz are not light reflections. Maybe you think Orz are many bubbles too. It is such a joke. Orz are not many bubbles like campers. Orz are just Orz. I am Orz. I am one with many fingers. My fingers reach through into heavy space and you seeOrz bubbles but it is really fingers. Maybe you do not even smell? That is sad. Smellingpretty colors is the best game.