What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

There's no point in abolishing ICE because a lawless Executive will still be lawless; they will just use other letters in the alphabet.

If the political will and popular support existed to abolish ICE, we wouldn't need to do it.

As awful as the agency has become, it is a symptom for much deeper problems.

[Jacob]

Total aside from all this - and I know I've banged on about it before.

But just saw Hegseth saying that when he served in Afghanistan with the ISAF shoulder badge the joke was that it stood for "I saw Americans fighting".

I've no doubt that was the joke and among soldiers I kind of think it's fine - standard squaddie humour and likely to start a punch up on, say, a British or Danish base but all in good humour.

But he's Secretary of Defense. It's cheap and wrong. I think these are the sort of comments that provoke a response from and turn off the sort of instinctively pro-American, Atlanticist conservative types in countries like the UK and, I imagine, Denmark, Canada and others who did send troops who died in significant numbers in Afghanistan (particularly on a per capita basis). Again, to nick a phrase - have you said thank you even once?

Denmark has been one of the US staunchest allies and - I believe - had the highest rate of casualties per capita of ISAF (including the US).

I don't think Denmark is as pro-Atlanticist as it was prior to Trump, no.

[Razgovory]

Looks like shit just got real.

[Zoupa]

Which of these two scenarios do you think are more important/impactful/serious:

1. Abolish ICE
2. Unlawful conduct by federal agencies/departments/agents

I think abolishing ICE would be monumentally more impactful than a Department of Agriculture employee driving 50 in a 35.

I think the military killing half the citizens of the US would be monumentally more impactful abolishing ICE.

You're not arguing in good faith. Bye.

[grumbler]

Unity of Fields is an extremist anti-Semitic group.  They are shitstirrers who want to maximize the deaths and damage done to the US because of its "guilt." Shame on MSN for giving them the media attention that they crave.

[Razgovory]

Antizionism is not Antisemitism.

[grumbler]

Antizionism is not Antisemitism.

Celebrating the murder of Jews for being Jews is anti-Semitic.

[Razgovory]

Antizionism is not Antisemitism.

Celebrating the murder of Jews for being Jews is anti-Semitic.

It's not antisemitic if you call them Zionists.

[grumbler]

It's not antisemitic if you call them Zionists.

An interesting worldview, but one I don't share.  Further, it doesn't matter to me what the murderers call their victims. Nazis, Jews, Zionists, Anabaptists... none of those labels justify murder in my worldview.

[Syt]

[garbon]

Seems like overkill to take out a puppy.

[Syt]

 

[Admiral Yi]

I thought the point was broader.

I argued the immigration infrastructure under Trump because it was, I'd argue, lawless. It was arbitrary and refusing to comply with court orders (including from the Supreme Court). The individual cases are bad on their own but they are a pattern of lawlessness indicating what those institutions are trying to do - their policy is to be arbitrary, act beyond their powers and ignore the courts. And, in that context, I think there is a good case for civil disobedience and refusing to cooperate in any way with a lawless state authority.

My understanding of your argument was that you should take it on a case by case basis.

So my view of the relevance is that us agreeing Noem's description of her agenda and what she is doing is not her job, or it's lawful role, is that strengthens my point that these institutions are - currently - lawless. It isn't on a case by case basis of a few eggs getting broken but an institutional policy.

How many data points of lawlessness do you have?  I only know the one.  There was an injunction to stop the use of section blah blah of the Enemy Aliens Act, but my understanding is that order only applied going forward.  No one was called back by the court.  Correct me if I'm wrong. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm conflicted about Noem.  On the one hand it's troubling that the head of the US domestic security agency takes her influence from the Third Reich.  On the other hand, it's cool to see cosplay go so mainstream.

[The Minsky Moment]

How many data points of lawlessness do you have?  I only know the one.  There was an injunction to stop the use of section blah blah of the Enemy Aliens Act, but my understanding is that order only applied going forward.  No one was called back by the court.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Judge Boasberg issued a TRO and ordered planes turned around. The planes in the air kept flying and some on the ground were even cleared for takeoff. When the Supreme Court confirmed that the Executive had to facilitate A-B's return (separate case), Trump and his people refused and made the preposterous claim that they had no ability to do so, a claim soon proven a bad faith lie when they changed their mind weeks later, and got him on a plane back with a snap of their fingers.  They flat out lied to the court.

But focusing just on criminal contempt of court orders vastly underrates the degree of lawlessness. The improper invocation of the AEA is lawless in itself, regardless of when and how a particular court rules. The Executive Branch isn't a three year old child; it doesn't get a pass on breaking the rules just because Mommy and Daddy didn't say "stop". The Trump people have been fairly open about the strategy of "flooding the zone" with unlawful EOs, to overwhelm the courts and "break things" before the slow moving judiciary can act effectively.

The orders against the universities are lawless.  The orders against the law firms are lawless. The threats to remove funds from states that don't agree with administration policy priorities (e.g. Maine) are lawless.  Attempts to close agencies and remove funding specifically authorized by Congress are lawless.  Threatening Elon Musk's companies with sanctions if he donates money to another party is lawless. There are literally dozens of such examples, each one individually would have been a massive scandal in any normal administration.  Lawlessness is not the exception, is has become the normal operating procedure of this Presidential administration.