President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Aren’t we paying them per person to jail people in their black hole prison? Maybe cut this off if they don’t comply?
Oh wait, we’re not allowed to see any of the terms on what the arrangement actually is because it’s national security.
are we allowed to know exactly where every dollar of "help to Ukraine" actually went? wire by wire?
Hey remember a week or so ago when Luciom said this was a mistake and that El Salvador would just give him back now that it was identified?
And then said it was up to El Sal but the Trump would def ask?
And now says they don’t have to do anything and it’s totes fine?
El Salvador should yes. but if it doesn't that's not an American matter anymore as that's not an American citizen so it's incredible (and legally incomprehensible ) to extend any protection of the American system to him once he isn't anymore under American jurisdiction
The fact that Trump is talking about sending US Citizens who are criminals to El Salvador would indicate that Trump is the one with leverage, and that the El Salvador President is (for some reason) trying to kiss Trump's ass on just about anything.What seems to be really lame is the quote from the El Salvador President, Nayib BukeleThe Supreme Court of the US has ruled that the
If he wanted to, I'm sure he could have brought the guy with him to Washington today. Honestly I think that would have been great publicity for both him and Trump. Trump could have had the Supreme court order become irrelevant, and it would look like he and his buddy had everything under control.
But no, Trump had to instead openly defy the order, showing that he is not willing to act within the framework of the constitution.
If the Supreme Court doesn't want to become completely irrelevant, they should make a joint statement to congress that Trump has clearly shown disregard for even trying to follow constitutional norms and must be removed from office before the entire system collapses.
Then if the impeachment trial works, we have to hope that the government police and military honor their duty to honor and uphold the constitution over any loyalty to Trump. Then Vance would have to show he understands he must follow court orders or he will also be removed.
biden threatened Meta with severe repercussions if they didn't censor according to the gvmnt, and meta is 100-500x more important for public discourse than CBS these days, isn't it?
btw CBS unlike Facebook did break the law.
Which law did CBS break? And is there actual evidence that Biden strong armed Zuckerberg? I don't remember reading anything definitive about that.
By the way, networks aren't licensed by the FCC, individual stations are.
Trump doesn't even know that he demands things which don't make sense.
according to freedom house El Salvador elections are fair and free.
the country is a hotbed of corruption as all latin america countries are yes, doesn't mean elections aren't free
He was talking about a poll and not an election, but actually what I'm much more skeptical about is their homicide statistics.
He was talking about a poll and not an election, but actually what I'm much more skeptical about is their homicide statistics.
elections were in 2024.
Bukele won with 85%
now I accept a claim that the elections weren't fair (but you need to source it), otherwise a poll at 87 following an election win at 85 last year would be absolutely within normal ranges.
what makes you doubtful about crime stats? if you put in jail the worst 1% of society they are expected to drop massively, everywhere in the world it's a recognizable tiny minority which does the vast majority of all violence.
young adult men from poor backgroundsz and within them a specific type of person
are we allowed to know exactly where every dollar of "help to Ukraine" actually went? wire by wire?
If it were important to show that a Supreme Court ruling was being followed, I think they should be given that information. Why shouldn't that happen?
If it were important to show that a Supreme Court ruling was being followed, I think they should be given that information. Why shouldn't that happen?
the supreme court ordered the district court to re-word the order more properly, and afaik they did.
the district court ordered to facilitate the return of the guy, and to inform the court about the steps made in that direction.
I presume that the payment for the jailing of that specific person being suspended could be a specific request by the court at any time but afaik the court didn't order that specifically yet.
if it does, then the gvmnt should suspend that payment yes (that's within it's powers) and prove it did that to the court.
The margins are sufficiently large that I think skepticism is called for, but yes, outside groups have rated his unconstitutional election as "largely credible and free". Like I said, mostly I'm skeptical about the homicide stats.
if you put in jail the worst 1% of society they are expected to drop massively, everywhere in the world it's a recognizable tiny minority which does the vast majority of all violence.
young adult men from poor backgroundsz and within them a specific type of person
Then you need to explain why the US has the highest incarceration rates in the western world and still has a lot of violent crime.
If you lock up the most violent 1% of criminals others take their place.
Violent crime has to be solved at a societal level.
Getting 85% of the vote in a 3 way election and bringing the homicide rate down from >100 to 1.9 just doesn't pass the smell test.
The margins are sufficiently large that I think skepticism is called for, but yes, outside groups have rated his unconstitutional election as "largely credible and free". Like I said, mostly I'm skeptical about the homicide stats.
why? in the USA there are 200k people known to law enforcement/ the feds (and that would be 0.5% of the population basically) that if jailed/killed would reduce murder rates by at least 90%.
Bukele jailed 1%+ of the population.
that's true everywhere crime isn't already very low. it's always relatively few people with history doing almost all the bad things. just remove them and society is fine. we have known this for millennia.
Then you need to explain why the US has the highest incarceration rates in the western world and still has a lot of violent crime.
If you lock up the most violent 1% of criminals others take their place.
Violent crime has to be solved at a societal level.
because those people get out. kill everyone (or permanently remove them from society) who has a violent criminal track record, and their closest associates, and check the crime rate after that.
how many violent crimes are committed by people who weren't on the radar at all? my claim is if you get on the radar you are out of society forever. that solves crime.
Then you need to explain why the US has the highest incarceration rates in the western world and still has a lot of violent crime.If you lock up the most violent 1% of criminals others take their place.Violent crime has to be solved at a societal level.
because those people get out. kill everyone (or permanently remove them from society) who has a violent criminal track record,
You are on the radar
I have to laugh, what would it take for Mong to acknowledge Trump is a moron.
I swear, he'd claim it's 4-d chess/art of the deal if Trump shat in his undies then started to eat it in a cabinet meeting.
Only fascist can’t see what fascism is and so they cant acknowledge it when it’s right in front of them .
You can extrapolate from there …
Then you need to explain why the US has the highest incarceration rates in the western world and still has a lot of violent crime.
If you lock up the most violent 1% of criminals others take their place.
Violent crime has to be solved at a societal level.
How many people do you think would need to be taken off the street before you became a violent criminal?
The actual SC created themselves their own demise of reducing their power and the end of the constitution by allowing presidents to be immune to anything they do as president imo .
Now we see the results .
The actual SC created themselves their own demise of reducing their power and the end of the constitution by allowing presidents to be immune to anything they do as president imo .
Now we see the results .
I think that was probably the worst SC decision ever made, but I don't believe it has caused this crisis. At this point it doesn't matter whether Trump will be immune to prosecution or not, as there appears to be no one who will remove him from office.
If he were to be impeached and convicted, I hope the military would support the action of congress, but I think it's unlikely that more than half of them would do so, and it could result in one half of the US military fighting the other half.
By the way, this is the first foreign leader welcomed to the country during this administration.
except for:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Feb 4
Japan's Ishiba Feb 7
Jordanian King Abdullah II bin al-Hussein Feb 11
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi Feb 13
French President Emmanuel Macron Feb 24
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer Feb 27
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy Feb 28
Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin Mar 12
Maybe a small hope the U.S. are just in a coma and not dead already .
Harvard decided to stand up to trump it seem ..
because those people get out. kill everyone (or permanently remove them from society) who has a violent criminal track record, and their closest associates, and check the crime rate after that.
how many violent crimes are committed by people who weren't on the radar at all? my claim is if you get on the radar you are out of society forever. that solves crime.
It's all been done before, as has this very conversation, and you're still completely wrong.
Go and look at crime statistics in the Victorian era when people were routinely hung. Public hangings weren't even a deterrent because pickpocketting, a hangable offence, was rife at public hangings.
Remove, temporarily or permanently, violent criminals and others take their place.
the supreme court ordered the district court to re-word the order more properly, and afaik they did.the district court ordered to facilitate the return of the guy, and to inform the court about the steps made in that direction.I presume that the payment for the jailing of that specific person being suspended could be a specific request by the court at any time but afaik the cou
Do you agree the US court can order the government to at least try and get the guy back?
If so - why is the government fighting as hard as possible to not do that?
Libertarians: Let's support Trump
Trump's first quarter: TARIFFS
Do you agree the US court can order the government to at least try and get the guy back?
If so - why is the government fighting as hard as possible to not do that?
you shouldn't be allowed to order someone to "try", that's a non sense.
as yoda said, do, or not, there is no try.
you can only order someone to do , or not do, something you are 100% it's in his capacity in a clear objective defined way. you can't order someone to "try to get peace on the middle east" ffs or "find the cure for cancer".
would you accept a court to order you to memorize a poem? which game are we playing here?
you shouldn't be allowed to order someone to "try", that's a non sense. as yoda said, do, or not, there is no try.you can only order someone to do , or not do, something you are 100% it's in his capacity in a clear objective defined way. you can't order someone to "try to get peace on the middle east" ffs or "find the cure for cancer".would you accept a court to order you to me
This is a ridiculous perspective. Courts order parties to use their "best efforts" all the time in situations where it is not entirely clear what is possible and what is not possible.
--Plaintiffs moves to compel production of X category of documents.
--Defendant: X documents were stored on servers that were damaged by a fire.
--Court: Have you done everything you can to retrieve documents off the damaged servers.
--Defendant: No, because we believe the documents are only marginally relevant, and certainly not important enough to justify the incremental burden, especially when we don't know how much, if anything, will be recoverable.
--Court: I disagree about the relevance. Defendant is ordered to use its best efforts to recover X documents from the server within 60 days. If recovery of the documents proves to be impossible without extraordinary effort, I will expect an update well before the deadline. Court is adjourned.
