Printable View
Yeah, that's not so big a deal. The White House has been rebuilt a few times. You folks even helped, once. There is a process, and he ignored that, and will create a hideous monstrosity, since he has no taste, but ultimately, this has happened a lot over the years. The scale is new, the action isn't so new.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlausiblyDamp
Otherwise, it's basically that Trump thinks he IS America and wants to take the country back to the 1950s for misguided reasons.
Um.... we did that too. We burned the whole thing to the ground. It was quite a long time ago though.:)Quote:
[*] Enemies who have actually destroyed part of the White House, I always assumed this was an important symbol to Americans - guess not if parts of it can be knocked down on one man's whim.
Personally, I don't think Trump is going to build a monstrosity in it's place. He's not going to build anything. Your White House is being replaced with a White Hole. The whole thing was yet another scheme for rich donors to funnel funds to Trump's wallet to buy influence. It's already fulfilled that function so no need to do the expensive rebuilding part - that would be lost profits. The White House is for sale... literally.
As for whether this is regime change, regime coercion or a Sunday picnic, you can call it what you you want without changing it's nature. Trump used the military to attack another nation, remove it's titular head of state and is threatening further attacks unless that nation gives him their stuff. Peace President, my ass. (I deliberately used "titular" because Maduro's illegitimate but given that Trump has replaced him with another illegitimate head while side lining the legitimate options means this won't function as a get out for you).
Mexico, Columbia, Panama and Greenland have all been explicitly threatened. Some will probably repeat the "Trump doesn't mean the things he says" mantra while ignoring the evidence that Trump definitely means the things he says and keeps going on to actually carry them out.
Trump is a military expansionist who has ignored your constitution, suspended due process, threatened his political opponents with death, attempted to shut down your right of protest, side lined both your legislative and judicial branches and litigated your media's right of criticism. There's a word for that... but apparently we're not allowed to use it because feelings get hurt.
Also, it sure feels like things have quiet on the release of Epstein documents.
Trump is a fascist and a nonce.
Trump kind of means the things he says at the time that he says them. His attention span is too short to be measured with a stopwatch, though, so whether he means the things he says a minute after he says them depends on whether or not somebody is reminding him.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
He's kind of like dynamic RAM in that way. If it doesn't keep getting refreshed, it loses what it's holding.
Those types of things seem to be more important to the people of the UK. They seem to treasure their ancient building.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Fun fact. This made me wonder where the royal family actually lives. I read this,
As Mel Brooks said, "It's good to be the King"Quote:
The British monarch owns at least seven palaces, 10 castles, 12 mansions and 56 cottages—along with some ancient ruins—worth an estimated $25 billion
Strangely the economy hasn't tanked. YET.Quote:
Enemies of the USA who have done things like tanked the economy with increases in food, fuel, and general cost of living?
It hasn't gotten better, probably a little worse. But I wouldn't say it has tanked. Groceries are definitely still raising to fast. Overall inflation is a little higher than it should be. That said, there are a lot of very nervous people waiting to see what happens because it feel like a crash is coming.
Nobody knows what's the situation is with tariffs nowadays. I certainly don't. Lately I've seen several have been quietly lifted.Quote:
Enemies of the USA who have ruined trading deals with former partners with stupid on / off tariffs, effectively improving China's financial position? e.g. Soy beans previously sold to China no longer being sold, costing you about $12 billion, and then bailing out Argentina who China were buying Soy beans from!!??!!
Just like with the economy, people are just waiting to see what happens. That's about all you can do when you have a person like Trump in charge. There's no real sense of stability or direction.
We are in an interesting situation, though. The economy really isn't doing badly for most people, yet consumer sentiment is about as low as it has ever been. Our economy is mostly based on us buying stuff from one another (services, mostly), and we appear to be doing that at a good pace. It's like a collective case of depression binge spending.
I'd say the economy is measured differently depending on you living situation. If your a family of four with one income then the price of food is very meaningful. If your your single then you don't feel the difference in prices much. Then comes housing. If you already own a house, no problem. But if your just starting out and don't have a high paying job the prospect of owning a home may seem out of reach. The reality of paying $2,000 a month rent would be depressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Those are basic needs, food and shelter. Add to that increased car prices, insurance and health care prices. The stock market can be booming but that's only helpful if you already have money.
I don't feel to much more financial pressure. But I'm single, own my home and been driving the same car for ten years. But a young family of 4, that's a different story.
Can we please never introduce the concept of "dynamic ram" into a thread about Trump again. It made me want to take a shower.Quote:
He's kind of like dynamic RAM in that way
It's 'cause we've got some:pQuote:
Those types of things seem to be more important to the people of the UK. They seem to treasure their ancient building.
Yeah, our royal family are sitting on a boat load of generational wealth. The buildings have a slightly weird status, though, because they're technically owned by the King but they're really an asset of the people/the state. The king would never, for example, sell off Windsor Castle or Buckingham Palace and it'd probably lead to a constitutional crisis if he did. It'd be as outlandish as, say, knocking down a whole section of the White House - it'd never happen.
Scary quote of the day.
Quote:
Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
So...nothing, then.
Looks like Trump is going to get his Nobel Peace Prize he's coveted for so long. It'll be a second hand one and not actually awarded to him but that's a minor detail. It's not surprising he would accept it but it does surprise me someone would give theirs away. But if you want something from Trump you got to pay the toll. The biggest question is will Machado get what she wants.
Not that I know of. But I don't think anyone knows what's going to happen next in Venezuela. Trumps decisions are certainly for sale.Quote:
My understanding is that they were allowing Maduro's VP to take over instead of Machado, has something changed?
Machado first offered to share her prize with Trump. I haven't heard if she's gone further and is offering it up. I'm not sure whether it would matter. Would the security apparatus in Venezuela accept her? I'd think not.
That's what's being reported.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/09/w...bel-prize.html
The oil companies aren't in any hurry to invest in Venezuela oil. Don't think that's what Trump wanted to hear. I'm curious about what's going to happen next. I really got no idea.
Neither does Trump.
Sure hope he doesn't get a bunch of people killed. So far it doesn't seem like we're being invited in.
Now, this is an idea that I could support. A one year, 10% interest cap on credit cards.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-cre...c625ba873c9b71
Just have to wait and see if this is just another one of those ideas that are here one day and then disappear into the ether or if there is some actual effort put into it.
Though it would probably cost me money. The credit card perks (like cash back) would probably disappear. I never pay any interest so the rate cap wouldn't save me anything.
It will be interesting to see how it works, my main concerns would be the perks (same as yourself, I never pay interest I use my credit card for the perks) and what will the banks do about covering losses; I could see refusals regarding applications go up if ja thought they weren't willing to risk losing money.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
In theory though it is an interesting idea.
I'd still use the card without the perks. I like not using cash and just pay one bill at the end of the month. If there was more refusals that might be a good thing. I'm very strongly against debt. Paying interest is such a waste of money. I understand home mortgages, emergencis and some car loans. But people use credit cards for things that aren't necessities.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlausiblyDamp
Can you even pass on a Nobel Prize like that? It's awarded to an individual based on their merit. I don't think it's a transferrable commodity. It'd be like the Superbowl winners saying they'd give it to another team for cash - that's not how it works.Quote:
Machado first offered to share her prize with Trump. I haven't heard if she's gone further and is offering it up.
I would certainly support more strenuous regulation of credit companies and that might include some kind of interest rate cap. 10% sounds a bit low to me if you want a credit industry to continue to exist (that's annual rate, right?) but I honestly don't know what a viable rate would be so... maybe.Quote:
Now, this is an idea that I could support. A one year, 10% interest cap on credit cards.
Thing is, though, that the fact that this would be a 1 year cap should tell you that it's nothing to do with solving some systemic credit problem, this is a naked attempt to buy votes for the mid-terms... assuming they even happen.
Surprised nobodies commented on the ICE shooting yet. Regardless of what people might think of the actual shooting (my take - it's manslaughter at the very least and possibly murder) but the fact that the FBI has frozen the state out of the investigation absolutely stinks of corruption.
Aside, we have a TV presenter/comedian called Jonathan Ross over here which is make the reporting feel kind of surreal.
As a 100% non-partisan resident of Minnesota, I'll chime in.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
A "justified use of deadly force" decision is, in the end, a binary Yes or No. But, the factors that go into that decision are a gigantic spectrum.
On one side, imagine a scenario where a police officer pulls out a gun and shoots and kills a child playing in a sandbox. Call that a 0. Obviously, and presumably unanimously, completely unjustified.
Now, imagine a scenario where a person with a gun is standing on a busy streetcorner shooting at everyone. A police officer shoots and kills the person. Call that a 10. Obviously, and presumably unanimously, completely justified.
Somewhere in between those two cases is going to be a fine line of a 5.
Imagine a situation where, the circumstances of a case equate to slightly higher than a 5 and is justified, but only very, very barely.
Now imagine a situation where, the circumstances of another case equate to slightly lower than a 5 and is not justified, but almost is.
I would say the average person might see footage of those two fictitious circumstances and not be able to determine which is which. Or, there might be certain camera angles that make a 5.1 (justified, but only just) look like a 2 (not justified); or there might be certain camera angles that make a 4.9 (not justified, but almost) look like an 8 (justified).
If what happened in Minneapolis is somehow determined to be justified (I think it is 50/50 to go either way), then I hope it is treated as having a justification level of (5+1/Infinity), meaning it's the least justifiable scenario possible.
For me it was unjustified. The reason I'd accept manslaughter over murder is purely that I can imagine a world where the officer shot out of panic rather than a cold hearted decision to kill. Basically, at the moment the car starts forward it is pointed at him... just. Unlike e.g. the Floyd killing this happened in a chaotic moment rather than in a drawn out situation where cool decisions could be made.
...But...
- She was not blocking the road. I think she'd parked to be deliberately awkward (perpendicular to the road) but cars were easily able to go around her, we can see that several do exactly that - including what looks to have been the vehicle the shooter got out of. She was waving vehicles past. The ICE agents did not need to exit their vehicle and approach her car at all.
- Federal agent training is to not position yourself directly in front of or behind a vehicle. The shooter should not have been where he was.
- Federal agent training is to not fire upon a moving vehicle.
- We know that he was able to side step the vehicle to avoid it... because he did.
- Regardless of his reading of the situation we can clearly see that her intention was not to hit him, she was turning away from him.
Given that lot I can put it down to incompetence rather than malice. But in that case the failing lies squarely with Noem and her rushed recruitment policies.
Didn't know that. Keep yourself safe dude.Quote:
resident of Minnesota
I certainly wouldn't oppose him being charged with something. And whatever the result of a potential trial would be, so be it.
That doesn't matter and never has with Trump. There was a story that came out back around his first run about somebody visiting him somewhere. He had a bunch of magazines out with him on the cover, one of which was a spoof of Time magazine that had named him "Person of the Year". He makes no distinction between real awards and phony awards, so he'd take the Nobel if offered to him and never stop to think about whether it was legitimate or not. It would be legitimate in his own mind, and that's all that has ever mattered to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I'd say it was unjustified, but what was clearly unjustified was the fact that the administration said what the outcome of the investigation was before the investigation began. There is ALWAYS an investigation of a police shooting, even if it is just a sham. There is one in this case, but the administration already stated what the outcome was, and clearly lied about the situation before the video started emerging. Now, they are trying to freeze out anybody they can't totally control.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
The shooting was a shooting. The cover up is a much bigger crime, as it is trying to lay the groundwork for an utterly unaccountable police force that can shoot to kill on a whim.
And don't lick any metal fences, even if they look tasty.Quote:
Didn't know that. Keep yourself safe dude.
Yeah, the fact that Nobel Prizes are not transferable is meaningless to Trump. He'll eagerly take it. He's already claiming that Norway is really embarrassed about not giving it to him in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Which include TV commercials seeking people to join and capture drug king pins and murders. They're offering signing bonuses. I don't know what there vetting and training process is but this shooting wasn't necessary. Though I don't know if it was done out of malice or panic.Quote:
Given that lot I can put it down to incompetence rather than malice. But in that case the failing lies squarely with Noem and her rushed recruitment policies.
Don't think it's a bigger crime, killing someone is a pretty big crime. But it does represent a bigger problem. When law enforcement doesn't have to be accountable for their actions, then no one is safe.Quote:
The shooting was a shooting. The cover up is a much bigger crime, as it is trying to lay the groundwork for an utterly unaccountable police force that can shoot to kill on a whim.
Yeah.... that! It's clearly a coverup.Quote:
the administration said what the outcome of the investigation was before the investigation began
In fact, it may not even really be a coverup. I heard a talking head describe this as a word that I almost certainly cannot use on this forum:rolleyes: but it describes the act of telling a lie to someone who knows it's a lie and knows that you know that they know it's a lie. At that point it's not actually an attempt to deceive, it's a power move. It's a way of saying, I can do what I want and you have no recourse to challenge me. I think that actually describes this presidency's playbook extremely well. It certainly describes their continuing failure to release the Epstein documents despite Trump even signing a law.
Governor Walz did as well, as did Minneapolis Mayor Frey. They both immediately declared it as unjustified murder.Quote:
the administration said what the outcome of the investigation was before the investigation began
I think that's probably a fair criticism. From the initial footage I think it being unjustified was a safer assumption than not... but it was still an assumption.
Don't get me wrong - Noem immediately declaring the shooter a "hero" that saved multiple lives was demonstrably and provably false based on the very first video released, even though that angle didn't really show the entire situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by OptionBase1
When she came to Minnesota that evening to hold a press conference, I was anticipating that she would walk back her earlier statements somewhat, since more video had been released in the hours since then, which showed that at most one officer's safety was at risk. She simply repeated everything from her earlier statement.
The officer who shot Good had been dragged by a driver trying to flee arrest 6 months ago. The officer was fairly severely injured, and required dozens of stitches. Was that a factor in this new situation? Almost certainly. But that alone obviously doesn't justify it. Maybe he should have been assigned to some other area where the situation is less chaotic.Quote:
Personally, I don't think it is a justified shooting, but I can put myself in the officer's shoes to see where he'd panic and (in the words of Frank on It's Always Sunny) "so I started blastin"
Really, it's several factors converging all at once. On one hand, you have the ongoing militarization of law enforcement agencies with ICE itself being under the black bag of Homeland Security and the increasing willingness of these LEOs to be more aggressive.
On the other hand, you have the egotism of the "I know my rights" protestors. They obstruct LEOs, expect not to face any consequences, and then when things go sideways they coward under the creed "I know my rights" while a person with a gun is dragging them away (or shooting them in this case).
To be honest, I don't think we can effectively oversee these law enforcement agencies, which causes the overcorrection of individuals doing more and more reckless things.
For mid-January, it is a gorgeous day out. Around 40 degrees, sunny. I just got back from taking a walk. Still shaking a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
First off, I went to a store and got a call from a family member who knew I was out and about. I had heard tons of sirens shortly before I got to the store. Turns out that about 4 blocks North of where I was, there was a significant situation between Ice and protestors. No idea what, if anything happened yet. Too early.
On my way home, about 5 blocks from where I live, a vehicle sped down a cross-street behind me, that I had just walked past. Behind that vehicle was a car blaring it's horn. Literally seconds later, several vehicles started racing towards where these two cars had driven. Presumably they were all Ice chasing.
At the next intersection (these are very much "side streets") I make a right and start heading South, and several cars are coming North towards me at 50+ mph. They are all going to turn left, but there is a stop sign that none of them are stopping at. The last car heading North is flying towards me, and now I see there is another car flying West. From my vantage point, I can see both cars, but they can't see each other due to houses and trees in the way. They are on a collision course if neither one slows down. I (probably stupidly) stepped somewhat in front of the car heading North towards me (they were still a 1/2 block away or so), threw up my hands and was yelling "Slow down!". Thankfully they did, and they didn't hit the other car.
Large groups of heavily armed, masked people roaming the streets is a receipt for disaster. It ineffective and unnecessary. ICE is lead by a person who is completely unqualified and is only there because she can be counted on to do what Trump wants. These massive raids are done for show, to appease Trump, he want large numbers and it doesn't matter how. The civilian response is expected, though obviously they put themselves in harms way.Quote:
Personally, I don't think it is a justified shooting, but I can put myself in the officer's shoes to see where he'd panic and (in the words of Frank on It's Always Sunny) "so I started blastin"
Really, it's several factors converging all at once. On one hand, you have the ongoing militarization of law enforcement agencies with ICE itself being under the black bag of Homeland Security and the increasing willingness of these LEOs to be more aggressive.
On the other hand, you have the egotism of the "I know my rights" protestors. They obstruct LEOs, expect not to face any consequences, and then when things go sideways they coward under the creed "I know my rights" while a person with a gun is dragging them away (or shooting them in this case).
To be honest, I don't think we can effectively oversee these law enforcement agencies, which causes the overcorrection of individuals doing more and more reckless things.
I'm glad for the citizen response but they need to keep in mind that you can't be breaking the law in an effort to protect the law. Because when things go bad you have not in a position the demand justice. You were breaking the law yourself.
None of this happens if our immigration problems were handled with the law and civil rights in mind. Instead of a propaganda opportunity. It also doesn't happen if this person doesn't park in the middle of the street.
It's all an unnecessary mess.
This administration does not do that.Quote:
I was anticipating that she would walk back her earlier statements
Dude! I tell you to keep yourself safe and the first thing you do is throw yourself into traffic! Your supposed to listen when a mod gives you a warning. Got to say, though, that was a pretty brave thing to do.Quote:
I (probably stupidly) stepped somewhat in front of the car
It sounds like the situation over there is pretty chaotic and probably pretty frightening. Are you actually in Minneapolis or elsewhere in Minnesota?
I have heard some reporting (though I'm not sure how credible it is) that she actually didn't do that. Apparently she parked by the side of the road and was part way through a three point turn when ICE rolled up. Hard to say given that the first footage I've seen starts with her perpendicular to the road and her wife already outside the car... but... her saying "It's OK, I'm not mad at you dude" struck me as an odd thing to say to the ICE agent if she had parked perpendicular to the road. Surely he'd be mad at her, not the other way round. If she was part way through a turn and he drove across the front of her then her quote would make more sense.Quote:
It also doesn't happen if this person doesn't park in the middle of the street.
Like I said, though, the reporting was from Left Wing talking head on You Tube so not exactly reliable and I've not seen any footage preceding that which Ross took so this is pure speculation.
It was one of those situations where everything slowed down and I was just operating on instinct. If the cars collided, I'm sure there would have been massive injuries or worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Elsewhere.
That narrative about simply being in the middle of turning was shown to not be the case days ago. Video from an upper floor from a nearby home shows her parked in the middle of the road for several minutes prior to the shooting. But that obviously doesn't affect any potential justification.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Not for the shooting but it does give more justification for approaching the vehicle in the first place.Quote:
But that obviously doesn't affect any potential justification.
I don't understand how ICE is conducting themselves when they descend on one of these cities. It sounds like they are just roaming the streets with no specific person they are after. It makes me wonder how they chose who to approach or stop. By the color of their skin??? I hope that's not what's happening. But they have detained people that are citizens. Which makes me think they don't have a defined subject. If anyone can clarify, I'd be interested to hear.
There has to be a better approach to dealing with people that are in the country illegally.
I can speak to this somewhat since it is happening close to home.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
They are definitely targetting individuals. They aren't just parading around town morning noon and night just stopping anyone who looks foreign. At least, that hasn't been happening where I live. In the case yesterday, there were dozens of Ice agents at an area where there are a large number of businesses that are operated by Somali people. They were there for one individual, according to reports. It turned chaotic when a hundred or more people quickly showed up and surrounded the Ice agents. The police came and kept everything civil, for the most part. I believe Ice did take a person into custody.
Now, in that case yesterday, is it possible that Ice agents were singling out troublemakers that were throwing plastic bottles and snowballs at the agents, and started asking them for ID and stuff? Very possible. And if those troublemaking people, potentially citizens, were refusing to ID themselves, is it possible they were temporarily detained? Very possible. Which isn't ideal, but sometimes getting the troublemakers out the equation helps keep people safe.
But, to my knowledge and what I've seen from a video standpoint (which I've watched a lot of in the past several days), they are not going through the crowds of protestors and singling out every dark skinned person and asking them to prove they belong here. They're largely not interested in interacting with the peaceful protestors at all, from what I've seen.
Thanks for the information.Quote:
Originally Posted by OptionBase1
I'm 100% for the right to protest. But some do overstep the bounds. Which just makes things worse for both sides. It shouldn't take "dozens" of ICE agents to take one illegal immigrant into custody.
The ICE situation is doing more damage than good. With the people on both sides of the issue at blame. Like most things currently, it's being handled with rage and not common sense.
Honestly, I think Good would still be alive if her wife hadn't got out of the car, been confrontational and then yelled "Drive away". In that environment people panic and very bad things can happen, even though it was very preventable.
When I said they have detained people that are citizens, I didn't mean protestors. I have no problem with detaining anyone who is throwing things at officers. I mean they have illegally detained people who are citizens (or in the country legally). That why I was wondering how they conduct these raids.Quote:
But, to my knowledge and what I've seen from a video standpoint (which I've watched a lot of in the past several days), they are not going through the crowds of protestors and singling out every dark skinned person and asking them to prove they belong here.