Of course that's what you are talking about. All you have are politicians' words about their commitments to xyz. There's no indication whatsoever that they plan or are even capable of keeping those commitments.

If we get down to the actual actions taken, nothing irreversible happened to US-European relations, and commitments to defense spending are only relevant if they stick for the long run, which I can virtually guarantee won't happen unless Russia invades a NATO country, which it won't for obvious reasons.

You're taking all of the lip service too seriously, and you're being sold hot air.

Trump said some things — Tzeentch

Yeah, I’m sure if Obama or Biden said 1/1000th of what Trump’s said, this too would be your reaction.

Believe it or not, when you’re president, words actually matter.

My burning dislike for politicians is non-partisan, don't you worry. But what I loathe even more is to see people of reasonable intelligence falling for their game.

And no, the president's words don't matter. The only thing that matters is what group of impoverished people US bombs are dropping on.

↪Mikie
My burning dislike for politicians is non-partisan, don't you worry. But what I loathe even more is to see people of reasonable intelligence falling for their game. — Tzeentch

As if you could call yourself out of the game. If people just watch, others will play at their place. On the other side, if you want to play, you must swallow all the shit that comes with it. Even when you do not deserve it.

But what I loathe even more is to see people of reasonable intelligence falling for their game. — Tzeentch

In other words, your non-partisan views, are politically irrelevant. You are loathing your own irrelevance.

I said developments. Also there are actions, like the U.S. military ceasing it’s delivery of promised arms to Ukraine as a bargaining chip in negotiating a deal(the minerals deal).

The action of conducting secret negotiations with Russia concerning European land, interests and security from which European representatives where excluded.

Apart from what Trump has said. He has single-handedly put the commitments and trust in the NATO alliance at risk of collapse. His actions have destroyed a hard won commitment to it’s values.

It doesn’t take a lot to destroy trust and once destroyed those who have lost it move on. Knowing that it takes time and commitment to restore it.

Daily White House press meetings:

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Briefs Members of the New Media, Apr. 28, 2025 (The White House · 27m:52s)
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Briefs Members of the New Media, Apr. 29, 2025 (The White House · 20m:55s)
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Briefs Members of the New Media, Apr. 30, 2025 (The White House · 25m:19s)

Participants are Trump'ers.
Gross.
One commentator notes: "This is scripted, state-run media. How far we've fallen."
Eerie.

On Sept. 9, 2024, the F.B.I.’s criminal investigative division reported that “as the use of cryptocurrency in the global financial system continues to grow, so too does its use by criminal actors.” The exploitation of cryptocurrency, according to the F.B.I., “was most pervasive in investment scams, where losses accounted for almost 71 percent of all losses related to cryptocurrency.”

Seven days later, Donald Trump declared on X: “Crypto is one of those things we have to do. Whether we like it or not, I have to do it.” In the same post, a month and a half before the election, he promoted his new venture World Liberty Financial Inc.

Back in the White House, Trump has discovered that what he criticized as “not money” six years ago could now serve as an ideal way to profit from his presidency. Estimates of the value of his crypto assets vary widely, from $2.9 billion by Fortune to $6.2 billion by Forbes, although Forbes acknowledged the figure is “a dubious estimate given it’s based on supply not yet on the market.” And as Trump said, it’s not, strictly speaking, money.

Eswar Prasad, a professor of economics at Cornell and the author of “The Future of Money: How the Digital Revolution Is Transforming Currencies and Finance,” who has written extensively about digital currencies, contended in an email:

It is quite remarkable for any government official, let alone the leader of the free world, to create and promote a vehicle for rampant speculation and to directly profit from it. Trump seems to show scarce restraint in his willingness to use the levers of power to enrich his family and close associates with little accountability or transparency.

Trump’s release of two meme coins, $Trump and $Melania, Prasad continued, “take conflicts of interest to an altogether new level, especially given Trump’s official position and his control of the entire financial regulatory apparatus.”

On a broader scale, Prasad wrote:

These actions highlight the Trump family’s all-out embrace of different aspects of crypto, from the creation to the securitization of crypto-related assets. From the mining of Bitcoin to issuance of their own meme coins and stablecoins, there is no corner of this industry that Trump seems to want to leave unexploited as an opportunity for personal profit.

Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Harvard, cited as a key example of Trump’s profiteering the president’s announcement on April 23 that the top “220 Special $TRUMP Meme Coin Holders will be Invited to an unforgettable Gala DINNER with the President on May 22, 2025.”

As a special enticement to stock up on the coins, Trump added:

FOR THE TOP 25 COIN HOLDERS, YOU are Invited to an Exclusive Reception before Dinner with YOUR FAVORITE PRESIDENT! PLUS, We have separately arranged for a Special VIP Tour for you — so make sure you stay in town! — NY Times, Who’s the Greatest Grifter of Them All

Well worth reading the rest of that article (via gift link supplied). The blatant corruption of the office of the Presidency is absolutely staggering. But then, in another article, we are invited to recall James Comer and the so-called House Oversight Committee, who spent the greater part of 2023-24 investigating the alleged corruption of the Biden family's connection to Hunter Biden's business interests. All of which blew up in Comer's face, as witness after witness repudiated the premisses of the investigation, with one being jailed for perjury and another fleeing the country. But, any interest in investigating Trump's flagrant conflicts of interest in his crypto ventures, or his sons peddling Trump Inc business interests all over the world? Not on your nellie!

Well worth reading the rest of that article (via gift link supplied). The blatant corruption of the office of the Presidency is absolutely staggering. — Wayfarer

Yes, but as I'm always wondering, does anyone give a shit about it? Is the corruption being stopped by enforcing the law? Where's the US marshals dragging him out of office? If the corruption isn't stopped and he can break whatever laws and regulations he wants, then there's definitely no democracy in the US. And if there's no democracy in the US, then what are the population opposing him waiting for to happen? For the storm to just calm on its own?

Yes, but as I'm always wondering, does anyone give a shit about it? — Christoffer

One of the readers comments on that article was, the people who could do anything about it - mainly, Congress - don't give a shit. There are plenty of others who do, but they can't do anything other than write articles or organise protests.

But the judiciary is holding the line, against repeated attempts to breach it. Many of his executive orders are held up in the courts. All is not lost, but it's dire, for sure.

the people who could do anything about it - mainly, Congress - don't give a shit. — Wayfarer

Then the people should show the congress what they think about their apathy. Democracy isn't just an election every 4 years. If the people actually cared for real, there would be millions in DC protesting, but the people doesn't give a shit. The people in congress is only interested in maintaining their individual power and will act accordingly, but with enough pressure they may feel that they will maintain power if they back the people protesting and not the backs of those around them.

The people in congress is only interested in maintaining their individual power — Christoffer

At least some bring up problems with the Trump administration for all to see:

Underwood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This weekend, the president made the remarkable statement that he doesn't know whether he has to uphold the Constitution. You, however, have taken a different position both in your confirmation hearing and when you took the oath of office. You said that you were committed to complying with the Constitution. Do you still stand by that statement?

Noem: Absolutely. I believe President Trump ...

Underwood: Excellent. Let's start with Article 1, which gives Congress and only Congress the power of the purse. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. But this administration is freezing, terminating, and even clawing back federal grants and awards that were already signed into law. These are taxpayer dollars that were appropriated by Congress for the specific purposes that we laid out. So Secretary, let me ask you, do you believe the administration has the authority to subvert appropriations law to freeze and terminate congressional funding?

Noem: The administration and the Department of Homeland Security used our authorities that we have to evaluate every grant that was in front of us and made statutory requirements but also to make sure that they were being spent appropriate ...

Underwood: So of course the president is within his authority ...

Noem: ... to make sure ...

Underwood: Ma'am this is my time. Thank you so much. Of course, President, the president is within his authorities to drive policy decisions within the bounds of federal law and the Constitution, but that's not what you've been doing. What I'm asking is whether you believe you have the authority to ignore appropriations law. Do you believe that the Constitution gives the executive branch unilateral authority to withhold funds appropriated by the legislative branch?

Noem: We have evaluated grants to make sure if they're being spent appropriately, and work that is underway and was authorized has continued. Other grants that have not been started and have not been authorized or obligated, we have re-evaluated and I think you're talking specifically about grants potentially within FEMA that were non-disaster related grants ...

Underwood: I'm talking broadly, ma'am, and Article 2 does not give the executive the authority to withhold funds, period. And multiple courts have weighed in to agree. Multiple courts have ruled in agreement. Congress controls the power of the purse.

Noem: ... We're ...

Underwood: That is a fact. That's not a question. That is a fact. And so if the president disagrees with certain spending, Congress passed the Empowerment Act to create a legal process to seek rescission, and we expect him to follow the law. This administration is not just ignoring the constitutional power of the people's elected representatives. It is also violating the fundamental right of individuals. Do you believe that the Constitution grants everyone in our country the right to due process, including noncitizens?

Noem: The administration has the authority to ...

Underwood: Ma'am, I'm looking for a yes or no question. Yes or no. Do you believe the ... Ma'am?

Noem: ...

Underwood: Claiming my time. Mr. Chairman?

Noem: ...

Underwood: OK, Secretary Noam, I'm just looking for a yes or no here. Do you believe the Constitution guarantees due process to everyone in America?

Noem: Due process is exactly what this Congress ...

Underwood: Yes or no. OK, ma'am, I'll take that as a "No".

Noem: ... due process ...

Underwood: Excuse me, I'm trying, ma'am, I'm trying to ascertain your understanding of the law as it applies to your department, and you as this leader should be able to give us a yes or no answer because judge after judge has ruled that the law is not being followed. Do you believe that the US government has the authority to deport American citizens?

Noem: No, and we are not deporting US citizens.

Underwood: OK, great. I'm so happy to hear that you do not believe that the law gives you that authority because the federal government has no authority under US laws to deport any American citizen, and as I know, everyone during this hearing today knows that several American citizens have been deported to date.

Noem: ... That's not true ...

Underwood: Secretary Noem, that was not a question. Secretary Noem, that oath that we both swore before taking office was to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the president, not a political party, the Constitution. And that's what we're going to keep doing here at the Appropriations Committee. Thank you, Ayo back.
— Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem Testifies at Oversight Hearing · C-SPAN · May 6, 2025

They're liable. So the question is: what next? Is someone building a case or something? What to expect?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Yes, but as I'm always wondering, does anyone give a shit about it? Is the corruption being stopped by enforcing the law? Where's the US marshals dragging him out of office? If the corruption isn't stopped and he can break whatever laws and regulations he wants, then there's definitely no democracy in the US. And if there's no democracy in the US, then what are the population opposing him waiting for to happen? For the storm to just calm on its own? — Christoffer

The US has already entered the sphere where many Latin American countries have been for a long time. Corruption will only be dealt with if there's a dramatic change in power relations. Just like in many Latin American countries or developing countries.


The US has now mediocre to weak institutions when it comes to check Presidential power. In a true democracy a tiny issue like putting foreign diplomats and leaders to check in Trump hotels when staying in Washington DC would have been considered corruption that could even have shaken the chair that the President sits on. Now it's just an example of how small and innocent the corruption was in the first administration.

Well, knock me down with a feather. Trump has told Johnston that he wants him to support raising tax rates on high incomes :yikes: - something the Republican Party has long refused to even consider. My bet is that Bessent and his other Treasury wonks have suggested it. But it actuallly seems - gulp - a good idea.

Well, knock me down with a feather. Trump has told Johnston that he wants him to support raising tax rates on high incomes :yikes: - something the Republican Party has long refused to even consider. My bet is that Bessent and his other Treasury wonks have suggested it. But it actuallly seems - gulp - a good idea. — Wayfarer

Well, Trump is not a republican, he is his own thing and republicans seems too stupid to notice how he just chose them because they were most inclined to put him forward as a candidate. He's in it for himself, so policy and traditional ideals of the republicans doesn't matter at all. He is a dictator who's only unable to fully act as one because of the thin line that still protects the US from becoming a full autocracy. But if he were able to, he would make himself a king, he's already making AI images of himself as the pope. So being part of republicans doesn't mean following their traditions of ideals.

He's a child who wants attention and wants to be king. It's both fundamentally pathetic and terrifying.

Can’t disagree but increasing tax rates on higher incomes is necessary and it would be a forward step if a Republican congress does it.

Can’t disagree but increasing tax rates on higher incomes is necessary and it would be a forward step if a Republican congress does it. — Wayfarer

Not opposing it at all, it's a great idea and has been a great idea for a long time. The further the gap becomes between low-income and rich people, the better it is to tax the rich. The laissez-faire ideal pushed by neoliberals is a capitalist utopian fantasy that the rich are good hearted people who put their money back into the economy... however, just as in any fucking part of history, the rich doesn't do this, they pool their income and wealth into dynasties and gain power, they do not infuse the economy or society with more wealth. The American dream is an ideal image that was built on extreme tax levels in order to kickstart society post-war. The way to actually transform a broken society to the better is with high taxes. But in a world where the difference between the rich and poor is as extreme as it is today, the logical way to improve society is to stop letting rich people pool their wealth away from society like some bloodsuckers squeezing out the last drops of lifeblood and actually tax them increasingly. If they oppose with the argument that they are investing with their money (lying), we can easily transform the tax laws so that private wealth is taxed (with stocks owned being earmarked for taxes whenever sold) and any capital gains within a company is required to be held within the company as investment either in or in a new company.

Society would look very different and the argument has never been to take people's hard earned money, it's an argument for how much money some people actually need. We already adjust the economy in a way that removes money from citizens in all kinds of different ways, so why would taxing the rich with higher taxes be any different? Why are people defending the rich but accepting regular folks getting their bank accounts drained?

Taxing the rich in today's society, globally, is a straight path to improving society overall. It's obvious and the only people opposing it is the rich, and their gullible idiot followers or people believing they will be rich one day, being fooled by their narratives.

But it actuallly seems - gulp - a good idea. — Wayfarer

Which is why there’s no way it happens.

Another Kristi Noem hearing, this one with Chris Murphy:

Murphy To Secretary Of Homeland Security Kristi Noem: Your Department Is Out Of Control
^{— US Senate · May 8, 2025 · 6m:54s}

Yep, liable.


:) No hangings please

Noem and a couple of others have now made uncompromising comments in public indicating their liability/intent, and that should have consequences, especially when the indications are that they'll just continue if they don't get attention.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

You're trying to sign your own death warrant. :confused:

So the Trump administration has finally acknowledged something I’ve pointed out for a long while. That is that the writ of habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence, applies to everyone, including non-citizens and undocumented immigrants. It means that, once arrived, a person has the right to argue his or her case before a judge. I’ve said in the past that this amounts to a kind of osmosis - if a person arrives from a territory with no recognition of human rights, it violates the rights they receive from being in the US to return them.

Now Stephen Miller is calling this principle into question on the (dubious) grounds that undocumented immigrants represent an invasion, and habeas corpus doesn’t apply in the case of an invading force. Trump has said a number of times of late that it would be impossible to bring each case of a couple of million undocumented immigrants to court, so this argument is making that claim explicit. Miller of course says ‘the constitution is clear’, which it is, in the case of an invading force. So it will depend on whether the judiciary agrees that undocumented arrivals constitute an invading force.

@Wayfarer

As is well known, if there is a time gap long enough between a Trump statement/tweet and how long it takes to make another tweet ( that is more than 5 minutes), the former can not be relied upon to be put into practice. So,don't get your hopes up.

'onest smile

I’m not saying that what they’re proposing is a good thing. I can *kind of* understand the motivation, because the influx of undocumented migrants is a serious issue in North America and Europe. But I think legal ways of dealing with it need to be found, rather than declaring it a ‘military emergency’ in order to justify the suspension of basic human rights. But, make no mistake, this is not a thought-bubble - it’s been the trend of the Trump administration right from the beginning of his first term.

So it will depend on whether the judiciary agrees that undocumented arrivals constitute an invading force. — Wayfarer

A Trump appointed judge had problems with that and ruled against Trump in the Alien Enemies Act. I don't think SCOTUS is going to give this particular administration a lot of leeway, esp. when it comes to something like suspending habeas corpus.

Ah yes, this is especially to @NOS4A2 and to our continuing discussion on the job that Kash Patel will do with the FBI. NOS was so eager and enthusiastic about this appointment at the start of this administration.

A very telling discussion on the FBI in Congress, worth the few minutes to watch it. It's just hilarious. So this is the way things are going like this with the Trump childrenbooks author heading the FBI:





:smile:

Moved here.

That’s hilarious, especially since Congress has been late with their budget resolution for 30 of the past 49 fiscal years. So it looks like we have another instance of you making mountains out of democrat mole hills, using Congress as your bell-weather. That’s understandable, as any small instance that might cast shade on Kash’s work needs to be magnified in order to support your theory that Patel is incompetent and the FBI will collapse. So here is your first piece of evidence, magnified as it is by congressional play-acting: a late budget request.

(It was a senate hearing, but same shit)

I already know that one of the biggest fears of Trump’s opponents is that a reality TV host and his rag-tag band of Fox News employees, children’s book authors, and private business men will do a better job than their over-educated bureaucrats and life-long politicians. The more their past is mocked the better because it makes their victories all the more sweet.

Meanwhile, me waiting for a ssu prediction to come true:

It looks like the Trump team has facilitated ceasefire negotiations between Pakistan and India. The comments of all involved are available on X, but we’re not allowed to post those kinds of facts here.

The leads me to wonder: “what the hell is every other leader in the world doing?” No one else stepped in? Where’s the Davos crowd?

It looks like the Trump team has facilitated ceasefire negotiations between Pakistan and India. The comments of all involved are available on X, but we’re not allowed to post those kinds of facts here. — NOS4A2

Even if at start Trump was clueless when asked about this, at least here Trump's administration and Rubio have done the right thing and responded how the US should respond.

After the terrorist attack India had to respond yet both sides didn't want an escalation to all out war (with both sides having nuclear weapons). Hence here the US acting as a third man was invaluable.

I give here one of the few positive marks for Trump's administration.

- - - - -

Yet one should note one thing here: two nuclear armed countries can come to blows, hence nuclear deterrence doesn't mean that sides wouldn't end up in a situation were limited military operations are launched.