What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

There are worse things than corruption.  Such as utter incompetence at governing that discredits everyone in the same ZIP code as you politically.

Fortunately, the NYC mayor covers a bunch a zip codes.  Any individual zip code will probably just get lost in the mix.

[viper37]

If we use the same definition as the US, we are already at 2%...

Spain, 1.28%.  Italy, 1.54%. Canada, 1.3%. 

We don't include coast guard, intelligence service or some of our police force in our military expenses.  Nor do we include some of our rail services, or critical mineral extractions.

But now we will.

[Admiral Yi]

We don't include coast guard, intelligence service or some of our police force in our military expenses.  Nor do we include some of our rail services, or critical mineral extractions.

But now we will.

If that makes you happy, go for it.  I don't know if it will make Finland and Estonia happy, but that's up to them.

What it does not do is compensate for the shame I think you should be feeling for making a promise back in 2006 that you did not keep.

[Jacob]

If that makes you happy, go for it.  I don't know if it will make Finland and Estonia happy, but that's up to them.

What it does not do is compensate for the shame I think you should be feeling for making a promise back in 2006 that you did not keep.

I think the point is that if we collectively set benchmark goals for expenditures between nations, it's only fair that we calculate the contributions similarly (i.e. do pensions and healthcare for military folks count towards the benchmark or not, is the Coast Guard counted, etc).

That said, I do think that Canada should be spending more on our military and I agree with you that it's shameful to have made a commitment to partners and to not have made a real effort to meet it. Though, of course, most nations have made commitments to international partners in all sorts of areas and failed to meet them.

[Grey Fox]

We don't include coast guard, intelligence service or some of our police force in our military expenses.  Nor do we include some of our rail services, or critical mineral extractions.

But now we will.

If that makes you happy, go for it.  I don't know if it will make Finland and Estonia happy, but that's up to them.

What it does not do is compensate for the shame I think you should be feeling for making a promise back in 2006 that you did not keep.

It's because of the F35. 2 Governments fumble that ball so hard that it affected our entire military spending for 15 years.

[Admiral Yi]

It's because of the F35. 2 Governments fumble that ball so hard that it affected our entire military spending for 15 years.

In case I wasn't clear before, I'm not responding to you until you apologize for the saying fuck the "I didn't vote for Trump guys."

[Grey Fox]

Yes, I understood that.

[Tamas]

Is it really to vote against their own interest to vote against the people that hold them in contempt? Honestly I don't think they think of it as voting against their own interests, in the past 40 years people like you have gotten richer and people like them have not.

You are right Raz, I have gotten richer recently.  Because Trump keeps cutting my taxes to screw everyone else. Honesty, I'd rather be a little poorer and live in a functional democracy that can provide a decent future for my kids.  So I guess you and DG are right; not everyone votes their immediate, short term economic interest.

But I'm still struggling to understand the motivation. I'm not running for office and the only people I hold in contempt are the people currently running Congress and the Executive Branch.  Your argument is that folks are voting to express their hostility against people like me, by voting for candidates that make people like me richer and make people like them worse off?  It seems to me that it's that line of reasoning that expresses contempt for those voters.  I'd like to think that there is some other motivation.

The simple truth of it is that people are foolish to vote for Trump. Their motivations at the heart of their reasoning might be valid, but their reasoning that results in the conclusion to vote for this visibly dumb and demented conman over pretty much any candidate avaliable is deeply flawed and is driven by gullibleness. They also happen to be the side that insist that spades are called spades so there it is, I am calling them spades.

[crazy canuck]

Yes, I understood that.

Post of the Month!

[Tamas]

What's with this supreme Court ruling saying judges can't tell the president what's constitutional or not? Sounds like the fascist coup is just about complete.

[Solmyr]

So nobody's gonna tell him he can't run in 2028. Or that he can't arrest anyone else who runs against him.

[Syt]

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-birthright-citizenship-immigration-9da9e11d83f2fd3cbf95e6a733651daf

Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear

Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship.

The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda.

But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally.

The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.

The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.

The president, making a rare appearance to hold a news conference in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was "amazing" and a "monumental victory for the Constitution," the separation of powers and the rule of law.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "The court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution." This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court.

Rights groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges still may be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of "putative nationwide class." Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring opinion.

States that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold.

"We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well," said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or "right of the soil" — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.

Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called "a priceless and profound gift" in the executive order he signed on his first day in office.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.

But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's adoption.

Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration.

The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings.

The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case.

The justice also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.

[The Minsky Moment]

What's with this supreme Court ruling saying judges can't tell the president what's constitutional or not? Sounds like the fascist coup is just about complete.

Judges can tell the president what's constitutional or not.  But now you need 50 of them to do it.

[HVC]

So when are the going to ensure only 40 judges are eligible to decide if a matter is constitutional? 49 if they're feeling generous

[The Minsky Moment]

Seriously, the case is going back to the district court.  The court could very well conclude that a nationwide injunction is necessary to afford the relief to the States that are parties to the case.  That conclusion would be allowed under the Court's current decision.  So the case could go back soon to the Supreme Court.