Canada has so much wide open space, it can take even more than the US. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I don't think that many immigrants are headed out in the wilderness (or build residences etc), be it in the US or Canada. :) Typical destinations are metropolitan centers or larger to medium urban areas. They need a foothold before they can start living and doing stuff.

@Metaphysician Undercover,

"...treat migrants with care..." mmm! Scarce evidence of that. Everybody has migrant origins, even first nations' people came from elsewhere, something convenient to forget, at times.

Not arguing with you. Just tidying up, a little bit. Of course,your being ironic also may be an interpretation.

A smile of no expectations

I suppose one's attitude toward migrants depends, somewhat, on the attitude of the migrants. If the migrants arrive with the attitude of conquer and rule... Then again, the attitude of the migrants may depend, somewhat on the attitude of the occupants. If the attitude of the occupants is Keep off!...

Looks like Fani Willis was disqualified from prosecuting the president. She wanted to make a name for herself but ended up dragging her legacy through the proverbial mud.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/19/politics/fani-willis-donald-trump-georgia/index.html

Yikes. It looks like anti-Trumpism can’t help itself. The question is: do they believe their own lies, or is lying a principle of their ideology? In any case, a very expensive choice of words.

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos was repeatedly warned not to use word ‘rape’ by producer — but said it anyway: sources

https://nypost.com/2024/12/18/media/abc-parent-disney-didnt-think-it-would-beat-trump-in-court-report/

I find it hilarious that you Trumpists consider the semantic distinction (rape vs sexual assault) a bigger deal than the fact Trump committed the sexual assault.

Looks like Fani Willis was disqualified — NOS4A2

Another technicality that has zero bearing on Trump's guilt in the crimes for which he was indicted.

Jack Smith will be out of a job soon. I wonder if Georgia will make him an offer.

It’s “sexual abuse”. You just can’t help yourself.

Another technicality that has zero bearing on Trump's guilt in the crimes for which he was indicted.

Jack Smith will be out of a job soon. I wonder if Georgia will make him an offer.

Sure it does. She was the one prosecuting him. The appearance of impropriety clouds her prosecutorial decisions, leaving the prosecution itself in doubt.

Sure it does. She was the one prosecuting him. The appearance of impropriety clouds her prosecutorial decisions, leaving the prosecution itself in doubt. — NOS4A2

From the article you linked:

The court added: “We cannot conclude that the record also supports the imposition of the extreme sanction of dismissal of the indictment.”

A special prosecutor can be appointed to take over the case.

It’s “sexual abuse”. You just can’t help yourself. — NOS4A2

You Trumpists are the ones splitting hairs. Here's what Judge Kaplan said:

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ”

ABC needn't have caved to the lawsuit. They likely settled to try and ingratiate themselves to Trump, who has voted to go after his enemies- and threatened strip the FCC license from networks that say bad things (AKA "the truth") about him. As a free speech absolutist, you should be appalled at the power Trump is wielding to stifle speech - but I expect free speech is secondary when it comes to your idol.

A special prosecutor can be appointed to take over the case.

What special prosecutor will take up a case brought by a corrupt political prosecutor? An idiot would, no doubt.

You Trumpists are the ones splitting hairs. Here's what Judge Kaplan said:

I don’t care what the anti-Trump judge said. It’s right there in the verdict form.

“Did Ms.Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

Mr. Trump raped Ms Carroll?

No”

Carrol couldn’t prove her one accusation. This is a corrupt case from top to bottom.

The Trump-Musk Shutdown is a fair indication of the paralysis and complete incompetence of the MAGA movement to do what they are elected to do, which is actually govern. It's become clear that the World's Richest Man is in effect calling the shots, saying he doesn't care if the Government shuts down and that no legislation ought to be passed until after the Incarceration Inauguration. The Emperor, meanwhile, has made it clear he intends to rule by decree (a.k.a. 'executive order') and bully anyone who opposes the Divine Will by either launching bogus 'investigations' (e.g. Liz Cheney) or threatening their primary pre-selection. Just what could be expected from electing an insurrectionist president with no interest outside his own.

What special prosecutor will take up a case brought by a corrupt political prosecutor? An idiot would, no doubt. — NOS4A2

Has a judge or jury judged Willis as corrupt? The appellate court merely judged there was an "appearance of impropriety", and removed her because this could affect public confidence. Nothing about this has any bearing on the merits of the case. The only bearing this might have on another prosecutor is knowledge that the job would entail having a target on their back from members of the Trump cult and defense team.

I don’t care what the anti-Trump judge said. It’s right there in the verdict form., — NOS4A2

You're quick to judgement on the judge, who did nothing wrong and displayed no blatant bias even in the context of daily attacks by Trump during the trial. Do you just accept everything Trump says?

It matters because it's relevant to what Stephanopolous said. ABC would probably have won the case, although it would have raised Trump's ire and led to his retaliation.

Carrol couldn’t prove her one accusation.

You're ignoring reality. She proved Trump sexually abused her and defamed her on multiple occasions. The jury felt that rape (as defined in NY criminal code) was not proven, but neither did they judge that it was DISproven.

.

It matters because it's relevant to what Stephanopolous said. ABC would probably have won the case, although it would have raised Trump's ire and led to his retaliation. — Relativist

I think the decision was made by or with ABC's parent company, Disney. They are concerned with Trump's escalating weaponization of the legal system while pretending that he is the victim. His strategy is always two-fold - legal determination backed by appeal after appeal and public opinion. The merits of the case was not Disney's main concern. They were more concerned with the process of discovery and what dirt could be found or manufactured against Disney's wide ranging assets and how this might affect their public image. As Trump knows well, whatever the truth may be, the harm comes from the accusations.

.

That seems the most plausible explanation.

You're quick to judgement on the judge, who did nothing wrong and displayed no blatant bias even in the context of daily attacks by Trump during the trial. Do you just accept everything Trump says?

It matters because it's relevant to what Stephanopolous said. ABC would probably have won the case, although it would have raised Trump's ire and led to his retaliation.

That’s false, he allowed the access Hollywood tape into evidence. He coached the witness. He scolded the defense. He tried to say her claim was “substantively true” when it was not. Did the jury believe the plaintiffs claims of rape or no? The answer is no, and no amount of gymnastics is going to change that.

You're ignoring reality. She proved Trump sexually abused her and defamed her on multiple occasions. The jury felt that rape (as defined in NY criminal code) was not proven, but neither did they judge that it was DISproven.

How did she prove it? You tell me and we’ll see who is ignoring reality.

That’s false, he allowed the access Hollywood tape into evidence. — NOS4A2

This is supposed to be evidence of corruption!? Such evidence is admissible, per
Federal Rule of evidence 415:

In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.

In the recording, Trump states that he ‘moved on’ a woman named Nancy ‘like a bitch,’ that he ‘tried to fuck her.’” As summarized by the district court, Trump also says “that he just starts kissing beautiful women, he does not first obtain consent, that the women just let one do it when one is a ‘star,’ and that a ‘star’ can ‘grab’ beautiful women by their genitals or do anything the ‘star’ wants.”

You obviously make no attempt at objectivity, and instead just parrot whatever the defense says, and treat it as evidence of corruption.

It's bizarre that you ignore the fact that Trump sexually abused Carol and defamed her, and deflect by obsessing on a crime that Trump was not found liable for. Unable to face the facts about your idol?

In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.

The access Hollywood tape is not evidence he committed sexual assault.

In the recording, Trump states that he ‘moved on’ a woman named Nancy ‘like a bitch,’ that he ‘tried to fuck her.’” As summarized by the district court, Trump also says “that he just starts kissing beautiful women, he does not first obtain consent, that the women just let one do it when one is a ‘star,’ and that a ‘star’ can ‘grab’ beautiful women by their genitals or do anything the ‘star’ wants.”

Classic contextomy. You quote that he moved on Nancy O’Dell “like a bitch” but leave out the clause immediately after “but I couldn’t get there.” Of course, Nancy O’Dell didn’t describe any assault during the encounter. This is because taking someone furniture shopping is not sexual assault in the real world.

You quote “grab” and “star”, and fill in the blanks in-between, but leave out “they let you do it”. There is no evidence of assault in the tape at all. The summary from the court is stupid.

You make no attempts at objectivity, just fallacy, propaganda, and projection.

It's bizarre that you ignore the fact that Trump sexually abused Carol and defamed her, and deflect by obsessing on a crime that Trump was not found liable for. Unable to face the facts about your idol?

What evidence do you have that Trump assaulted Carroll? DNA? Video? Admission of guilt? It’s bizarre that you can believe someone committed a crime without evidence. Unable to ignore the facts about your folk devil?

The first near shut-down came and went.

We got now the first event of how the Trump administration will work as Musk showed his power in the incoming Trumpster-fire administration.

So Elon Musk didn't actually like the bill going for government funding because it put restrictions on US investments in China. Elon has a Tesla gigafactory in China and is even thinking of investing more in the country more hence he didn't like his investments to be in peril. What do you know, these limitations that would hinder Musk were dropped and a new bill got through. So evidently Musk got what he wanted.

(CNBC, Dec 21st) The scrapped provision “would have made it easier to keep cutting-edge AI and quantum computing tech — as well as jobs — in America,” he (Jim McGovern) wrote. “But Elon had a problem.”

Tesla, run by Musk, is the only foreign automaker to operate a factory in China without a local joint venture. Tesla also built a battery plant down the street from its Shanghai car factory this year, and aims to develop and sell self-driving vehicle technology in China.

“His bottom line depends on staying in China’s good graces,” McGovern wrote about Musk. “He wants to build an AI data center there too — which could endanger U.S. security. He’s been bending over backwards to ingratiate himself with Chinese leaders.”

The top Democrat on the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee said on Friday that Republicans in Congress were protecting Elon Musk's Chinese investments by scrapping provisions restricting U.S. investments.

Representative Rosa DeLauro said in a letter that Musk, CEO of electric car maker Tesla, may have upended the government funding process to remove a provision that would regulate U.S. investments in China given his "extensive investments in China in key sectors and his personal ties with Chinese Communist Party leadership, and calls into question the real reason for Musk’s opposition to the original funding deal."

Of course it's far cheaper to manufacture things in China than in the US, so I guess Elon is as smart as Trump praises him to be.

(Tesla's Gigafactory in Shanghai)


But of course this detail won't matter for the Trump lovers who are so happy to be in their fantasy of that Trump or the richest man in the World think about the ordinary citizen.

The Clown talks about grabbing the Panama Canal and Greenland to cheers in the background.

Grab them by the pussy and see if they let him force himself on them, while the peanut gallery enjoys vicariously.

We got now the first event of how the Trump administration will work as Musk showed his power in the incoming Trumpster-fire administration.

These predictions are fun. Great fodder. I’m just curious.. have you ever been right?

Just lovely.

Joe Biden commutes sentences of 37 out of 40 federal death row inmates

Joe Biden has commuted the sentences of 37 out of 40 federal death row inmates, changing their punishment to life imprisonment without parole.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/23/joe-biden-death-row-inmate-sentences-commuted-clemency

, I'm reminded of a sitcom with a studio audience. :D

... seems to belong in this thread.

These predictions are fun. Great fodder. I’m just curious.. have you ever been right? — NOS4A2

NOS, this already happened as the bill passed. So it isn't a predicition. It's a fact. Elon did get that part of the bill removed.

Very telling how much you even bother to read others comments.

And about my predicitions?

I started a thread Putin's Breakthrough in Political Ideology: the new Komintern eight years ago, I wrote then in 2016:

It's simply a brilliant change in the political ideology and the propaganda. Basically is quite the same as with the old KGB. The difference is that if the Soviet Union depicted United State as the epitome of capitalist evil making basically no difference with US political factions, now it is about the "evil capitalist elites". And that little addition: that it's the small global elite that is the root of evil is something that brings on vast amounts of followers to the cause. And hence the US isn't the "Evil Empire", using Reagan's words, it's the "evil elite" of the US which is behind everything bad. The common American (that voted for Trump) can be praised. That it's a political ideology can be seen from the fact that Russia doesn't have to lie, make up falsehoods (which it does from time to time), but simply state it's views.

The Russian foreign policy objectives and it's agenda are totally logical. Going against NATO, against the Transatlantic connection and the EU is obvious as these supranational organizations make it possible for smaller countries in the zone of influence of Russia, like the Baltic States, to go against Russia. If relations in Europe were done on a one-to-one basis, Russia would have a very influential position. But if it has to negotiate with the EU, it is in a disadvantage. Hence the anti-EU stance of Russia. And the anti-NATO stance of Russia ought to be obvious to everybody.

Now eight years after, Elon Musk is supporting the AfD as the only hope for Germany, a party which indeed has it's libertarian agenda and is for nuclear power and border controls, has It's co-leader saying this about NATO:

(VoA, Dec 15th, 2024) Berlin —
The co-leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party on Sunday said Germany should reconsider its membership of NATO if the U.S.-led military alliance did not consider the interests of all European countries, including Russia.

"Europe has been forced to implement America's interests. We reject that," the AfD's Tino Chrupalla told German daily Welt.

"NATO is currently not a defense alliance. A defense community must accept and respect the interests of all European countries — including Russia's interests," Chrupalla said.

This is "Finlandization" that you could hear during the Cold War a Finnish Communist Party minority member rant, not a NATO country politician: being critical of the US, saying that NATO isn't a defense alliance and declaring that Russia's interests have to be respected.

If you are clueless what game the Kremlin is playing and how Russia functions, then you will be as clueless as you were in the cusp of the Ukraine war when you declared (on page 13) that you don't know who to believe (when the argument was that the US was saying that Russia will invade and Russia denied that). At least then me and @jorndoe among others did see the writing on the wall before that the war was unavoidable before the actual war started. The "Putin undersranders" were still promoting the Putin's lie that Russia wasn't going to attack and that the US was telling a lie.

(And I might be too optimistic about the Trump administration, but the how it's partly behaving worries me a lot. But as an optimist, I hope for the best.)

Anyway, Merry Christmas, @NOS4A2 and others, and hope also to discuss matters with you the next year too. :sparkle:

We got now the first event of how the Trump administration will work as Musk showed his power in the incoming Trumpster-fire administration. — ssu

Short-term they will attempt to work as if the US is a joint business venture. People who do not understand how running a nation works might think this is a good thing, but the US cannot take advantage of the protections it offers to corporations that both Trump's and Musk's businesses depend on. Citizens are not workers who can be laid off and disregarded. The country is not for the benefit of the owners and shareholders.

Long-term it seems likely that the relationship between Trump and Musk will fracture. For both of them shared power means shared recognition and neither wants to play second fiddle. Then there is the question of who the "shareholders" aka Congress will back. Trump's power lies with his popularity, but Musk's with his technological prowess. And while the social media platform X dwarfs Trump's Truth Social, the more decisive power lies with Musk's SpaceX, for which Trump has nothing even remotely comparable.

Thanks for the refresher. Though I would add that Zelensky himself was “promoting the Putin's lie that Russia wasn't going to attack”.

No, I generally read you with great interest, and you stated you have the first event of how the Trump administration will work. That’s not a fact. That’s a prediction of a future Trump administration. We can include in that your predictions of a failing FBI and a Brxit-like economy. Should you be right I’ll be sure to praise your foresight. But it’s interesting to me because predictions of future threats and disasters is one of the processes of moral panic theory. And regarding Trump you make quite a lot of predictions.

We’re all clueless in regards to the future, and anyone who pretends to know it is ridiculous. I don’t find you ridiculous, unlike others, so it is especially jarring when I read it from you.

Enjoy your holidays, ssu; stay free.

Though I would add that Zelensky himself was “promoting the Putin's lie that Russia wasn't going to attack”. — NOS4A2

Indeed he did. To calm the situation. But then again, he didn't flee as the Biden offered him. Extremely crucial point that people like Biden have difficulties to understand.

and you stated you have the first event of how the Trump administration will work. That’s a prediction of a future Trump administration. — NOS4A2

That's true. Yet from history and the present you can always make extrapolation, even in the future black swans like the sudden Yellowstone Supervolcano eruption in March of 2025 will put the administration totally on a different track we assumed it would be going.

But it’s interesting to me because predictions of future threats and disasters is one of the processes of moral panic theory. — NOS4A2

I don't intend it to be that way. After all, we have already seen a Trump administration. The end didn't come, there was no self-coup, democracy survived. That tells a lot. A Trump administration is much more actually like the Clinton administration, a crazy place inside, scandals and impeachments and the usual Trump stuff, and then actually some things are done (which even survive to the next administration).

And I'm not doom and gloom about the war in Ukraine. Trump still can surprise even me. It's also a possibility, even if it looks remote, that just like Assad, Putin secure hold of his country will collapse.

But that the megarich control/have a huge influence over US policy? Ooooh, that is really not going to go away anytime soon!!! I'll make a bet on that with you anytime.

We’re all clueless in regards to the future, and anyone who pretends to know it is ridiculous. I don’t find you ridiculous, unlike others, so it is especially jarring when I read it from you. — NOS4A2

As I said, we are all clueless about the Yellowstone Supervolcano eruption next March, because we assume to have far in advance some warning that a huge volcano that erupted last time 640 000 years ago and had a major eruption 2,1 million years ago. A reactivation of a volcano can happen in months or even weeks. So can that reactivation and eruption happen in one week or so? Who knows, we weren't around the last time.

Will USA collapse as Hollywood portrays these events? Nah. We just experienced a pandemic and it didn't go the way that people had estimated.