Trump 2.0
Re: Trump 2.0
In one of those thoughts you have at 4 in the morning, I wonder what's the likelihood of there being a pushback by the military in response to the abuses of the constitution that seem to be the modus operandi of T2.0
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
Re: Trump 2.0
Same video I think Bluesky link: https://bsky.app/profile/artcandee.bsky ... vdpdtayc2b (need to be logged in to view)Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 5:45 pmA 3 minute video showing the third Kennedy assassination. Well worth watching.Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 4:39 pmAnyone else watching the the RFK jnr hearing?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwyw5l584knt
https://x.com/p_kallioniemi/status/1884 ... 34483?s=61
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: Trump 2.0
The only abuses of the constitution I have seen recently have been committed by Supreme Court Judges.
What are the abuses of the constitution you consider in relation to Trump himself that you say are occurring?
I suppose there is a question of definition here. He has issued many executive orders that ask for things to be done which he does not have a power to demand. Many others are vague, poorly drafted and so not properly defined, or just wish-lists. He did much of that in his first term too, and the result is that those inadequate orders fell away, as people refused to follow them, indeed they couldn't follow them because that would not be right and put them at legal risk.
To me, abuse would be actually succeeding with these dubious orders.
So, are you asking, will the military refuse to follow illegal orders? Or are you asking, will the military step in to prevent illegal orders being carried out?
But I haven't seen any evidence of illegal orders being carried out, and the message of Trump 1.0 is that illegal orders just isn't a way to get things done in the US. People refuse to follow them.
Re: Trump 2.0
Attempting to remove birthright citizenship (14th Amendment) was deemed "blatantly unconstitutional" by the federal judge who blocked it.
During arguments, Judge Coughenour asked a lawyer for the Trump administration "where were the lawyers" when the executive order was drafted by Trump's team, and chastised him for his claim that the order is constitutional.
"It boggles my mind," the judge said.
Re: Trump 2.0
As I said, what's the definition of "constitutional abuse" - merely attempted but unsuccessful, as has happened many times under Trump 1.0, and as in this example, or actually getting it past the lawyers.headshot wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 8:51 amAttempting to remove birthright citizenship (14th Amendment) was deemed "blatantly unconstitutional" by the federal judge who blocked it.
During arguments, Judge Coughenour asked a lawyer for the Trump administration "where were the lawyers" when the executive order was drafted by Trump's team, and chastised him for his claim that the order is constitutional.
"It boggles my mind," the judge said.
There's no need for the army to do anything when the existing judicial powers stop these things.
And actually in this case, I don't see it as the kind of "constitutional abuse" that there would be any grounds for the army to step in to prevent.
As we have seen recently, the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. And it is the Supreme Court who have, we might argue, changed the meaning of the constitution, as any reasonable person might reasonably have read it, to extend the power of the president, especially in relation to presidential immunity. That happened while Biden was president, but at Trump's bidding. No one seemed to be asking the army to march in and stop it. And I would call that example constitutional abuse.
Trump might appeal this birthright ruling all the way to the Supreme Court. It's about these words, set out below, mean. "All persons born" might seem clear enough, but actually right from the start they never meant what they seem to mean. In particular, it is generally accepted that the children of foreign diplomats don't get citizenship. And, would you believe, the actual author of the clause Jacob M Howard, argued that "persons" excludes native Americans, foreigners and aliens, on the grounds that they do not have allegiance to the USA - in the case of native Americans because they have tribal allegiances. But in practice that argument ended up only excluding the children of diplomats. Nevertheless, it exhibits the scope for argument around it.
So I can quite see the present Supreme Court agreeing that the children of illegal immigrants and people in the US on temporary visas do not benefit from this clause. And I don't think it likely that anyone would expect the army to step in if they did.
Is it constitutional abuse to attempt to adjust the meaning of old piece of constitutional text to something arguably more normal? Few other countries, including quite civilsed ones, give birthright citizenship at all. It is not seen as a general human right. In general, debarring an immediate right of citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants and those present on temporary visas would seem quite plausible. Ireland recently changed its birthright laws precisely because people were arriving there to give birth and get the citizenship for their children, which was clearly an abuse.Fourteenth Amendment wrote:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The difficult issue for the US in this case, and the reason the issue is so charged, is its very large population of long-standing illegal immigrants, and their children who grow up living there. There needs to be a reasonable approach to that. At the moment, the children born in the US get citizenship at moment of birth. Though those who arrived at the age of, say 2, are hardly in a different situation and don't benefit. Arguably that is the wrong place to draw lines. It is a difficult situation, and the US needs to come to a sensible approach. But, like Brexit and abortion, it is one of those issues that speak to people's cultural idea of themselves, which makes it difficult to agree practical and realistic rules.
But constitutional abuse? The army stepping in over it?
-
- Snowbonk
- Posts: 595
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:05 am
Re: Trump 2.0
In my view it is important to understand that most of Trump's Executive Orders are performative rather than being an attempt at governing. They are largely designed to keep his base energized (and the donations coming in) and to punish people Trump does not like. This will be a presidency largely of retribution.
Here grows much rhubarb.
Re: Trump 2.0
The plan seems to be three fold, 1) Trump wanting revenge, 2) cementing the Republicans in power by using the state to tilt everything they can in their favour, 3) grift, to Trump, his backers and the wealthy class in the USA.
Re: Trump 2.0
So Musk seems in charge of the cementing and the grifting. Musk is taking over control of the federal payments system, which disburses trillions of dollars each year.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... port-says/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... port-says/
Re: Trump 2.0
He's not. He's just violating multiple laws by hacking into the systems without authorization.bjn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 4:48 pmSo Musk seems in charge of the cementing and the grifting. Musk is taking over control of the federal payments system, which disburses trillions of dollars each year.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... port-says/
Re: Trump 2.0
Who is going to stop him and Trump? Congress? The courts?
Re: Trump 2.0
Damn, the one thing Trump is gonna do is massively increase the number of anti-government lawsuits, potentially for years. Just as a result of the first week in office. Just how many wrongful dismissal suits will they be looking at? I can also see a massive one between Trump and Musk over who should be paying out for illegal access. When those two fall out, it's gonna be messy.
Oh, to be a lawyer in today's USA
Oh, to be a lawyer in today's USA
Re: Trump 2.0
If you want to know how Trump's mission to bring down the price of eggs is going, prices are up about $1 a dozen at my local supermarket (i.e. 20%) since last week. And eggs are now rationed to two dozen per customer.
Other grocery prices were noticeably higher.
And the tariffs are not yet affecting prices.
Other grocery prices were noticeably higher.
And the tariffs are not yet affecting prices.
Re: Trump 2.0
It's not as if he had any intention to get the price of eggs down, just revenge, cutting taxes and being mean to the poors and non white people.
Re: Trump 2.0
Yes, but he's going to find it hard to keep a majority in Congress behind him if people are pissed off about gas prices and food prices going up.
-
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:22 pm
Re: Trump 2.0
Don't forget, it's still the Biden administration's fault. You'd have had loads of eggs and the price would have been unbelievably low if Biden hadn't ordered the slaughtering of millions of chickens.
(OK, it was to stop the spread of bird flu which would have caused even bigger deaths (and threatened further bird to human transmission) if not done, but it's definitely Biden's fault...)
(OK, it was to stop the spread of bird flu which would have caused even bigger deaths (and threatened further bird to human transmission) if not done, but it's definitely Biden's fault...)
Re: Trump 2.0
Strange how the sudden price rises and rationing only started two weeks after Trump took office after promising to "immediately" bring down the price of the eggsFlammableFlower wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 9:31 amDon't forget, it's still the Biden administration's fault. You'd have had loads of eggs and the price would have been unbelievably low if Biden hadn't ordered the slaughtering of millions of chickens.
(OK, it was to stop the spread of bird flu which would have caused even bigger deaths (and threatened further bird to human transmission) if not done, but it's definitely Biden's fault...)
Re: Trump 2.0
And Musk can now dox anyone in the USA as well as divert money to wherever he wants. Facts on the ground beat court cases.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ent-system
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ent-system
Re: Trump 2.0
Holy sh.t.bjn wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:24 pmAnd Musk can now dox anyone in the USA as well as divert money to wherever he wants. Facts on the ground beat court cases.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ent-system
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
Fintan O'Toole
Fintan O'Toole
- Brightonian
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1560
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm
- Location: Usually UK, often France and Ireland
Re: Trump 2.0
Magnet for every hacker group in the world.
-
- Fuzzable
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm
Re: Trump 2.0
The Australian market has already dropped close to 2% in what is (presumably) the first market reaction to Trump starting a tariff war with China and Canada and Mexico . If this snowballs into a more serious crash and/or inflation shoots up a lot again, as I think is expected, can trump actually back down? He does care about markets and inflation is surely important to his popularity, but can he admit he is wrong or find a way to back down while pretending he is not?
Re: Trump 2.0
And the people holed up with Musk looking after the USA's money are a bunch of 19-24 year old hackers....
https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-g ... engineers/
https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-g ... engineers/
Re: Trump 2.0
This is all easily solved by giving them wedgies and stuffing them into a high school locker somewhere.bjn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:46 amAnd the people holed up with Musk looking after the USA's money are a bunch of 19-24 year old hackers....
https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-g ... engineers/
Re: Trump 2.0
You may laugh, but Musk is in charge of the administrative part of the federal government, the c.nt has grudges, is entitled and is profoundly greedy. It is going to be a huge sh.t show. I sold off all the US treasury bonds I had in my SIPP a while back thinking it was going to be bad, but this is worse than I expected.
Oh, and Musk loves crypto currency b.llsh.t, I’m half expecting him to do something profoundly stupid with that on a federal level.
Oh, and Musk loves crypto currency b.llsh.t, I’m half expecting him to do something profoundly stupid with that on a federal level.
- Brightonian
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1560
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm
- Location: Usually UK, often France and Ireland
Re: Trump 2.0
Introducing "Big Balls": https://bsky.app/profile/kevinmkruse.bs ... 7upwp5j22ybjn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:46 amAnd the people holed up with Musk looking after the USA's money are a bunch of 19-24 year old hackers....
https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-g ... engineers/
Re: Trump 2.0
It's remarkable that these children appear able to walk into government departments and claim they're allowed to just plug into secure systems and take whatever they want, and then they do. How do they even get past Reception?Brightonian wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:49 pmIntroducing "Big Balls": https://bsky.app/profile/kevinmkruse.bs ... 7upwp5j22ybjn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:46 amAnd the people holed up with Musk looking after the USA's money are a bunch of 19-24 year old hackers....
https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-g ... engineers/