That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Awesome! Thank you Mr. FishPants!Zaxxon wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 6:14 pm Thanks to Mr. FishPants, we no longer have to link to the hellsite as our primary twitter-like service. BlueSky embeds are live. Woohoo!
People will be shocked to learn that their field-picked produce depended on the labor of terrorists.
Luigi may have had a point.LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:15 am Everyone has a different watershed moment but at some point there needs to be a switch from rational discourse to active resistance.
I was surprised but yesIceBear wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 7:32 pm But are they rounding them up in Texas and Florida or just the blue states?
Who will be replaced by rogue, partisan bureaucrats.The White House defended the firing of Fong and the other inspectors general, saying "these rogue, partisan bureaucrats... have been relieved of their duties in order to make room for qualified individuals who will uphold the rule of law and protect Democracy."
I mean, some of the inspectors general were Trump appointees, right?Zarathud wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 9:15 pm When Republicans make accusations, they are really confessing their own sins.
In fairness, they have no idea what the fuck they are doing, and keep changing what they are trying to do.pr0ner wrote:lRM9's info isn't totally accurate based on updated FAQs.
This is actually good, it means that they haven’t learned anything from last time, when he had to back off and retool several initiatives. This will slow them down if they continue acting incompetently.
No, I'm not sure that's what it means. I think they have a blitz strategy to see what sticks. Similar to the travel ban he enacted during his first term, it took a few tries to get the wording right before it was finally upheld (3rd time? 4th time) by a judge.Grifman wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:38 pm This is actually good, it means that they haven’t learned anything from last time, when he had to back off and retool several initiatives. This will slow them down if they continue acting incompetently.
And (3) invite lawsuits that create openings to overturn precedents and expand presidential power. Even if they lose 3/4 of those cases, that fourth one is going to be a doozy, and the other three will have bled their opponents' resources.Smoove_B wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:54 pm Right now the goal is to (1) overwhelm and (2) demoralize.
Uh, not according to the article, which says this was not vetted by top WH officials. Trump doesn't like to back down nor does he like to be wrong.Smoove_B wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:54 pmNo, I'm not sure that's what it means. I think they have a blitz strategy to see what sticks. Similar to the travel ban he enacted during his first term, it took a few tries to get the wording right before it was finally upheld (3rd time? 4th time) by a judge.Grifman wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:38 pm This is actually good, it means that they haven’t learned anything from last time, when he had to back off and retool several initiatives. This will slow them down if they continue acting incompetently.
Let’s hope they obey orders… they want them so they can make a big show of ignoring itKraken wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 12:32 amAnd (3) invite lawsuits that create openings to overturn precedents and expand presidential power. Even if they lose 3/4 of those cases, that fourth one is going to be a doozy, and the other three will have bled their opponents' resources.Smoove_B wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:54 pm Right now the goal is to (1) overwhelm and (2) demoralize.
Yup, we need to pick our spots. Half of those EOs are performative bullshit for the deplorables. One can only muster so much outrage at the other half. So far, the Dems are doing OK at tiptoeing through the minefield. They must not get hysterical.waitingtoconnect wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 2:30 am The sheer number of executive orders at well over 200 is also part of the play. Because it’s going to be hard to stop everything.
Project 2025 lays out precisely this strategy.
Australia has done this for years. They’ll lock up people in surrounding countries indefinitely if their home country won’t take them back (and often they won’t). Other parts of south east asia do the same; or worse - they will shoot you if you try and enter illegally.Zaxxon wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2025 6:14 pm Thanks to Mr. FishPants, we no longer have to link to the hellsite as our primary twitter-like service. BlueSky embeds are live. Woohoo!
Ironic
The DoD now stands for Department of Deplorables.
“The airplane was on a perfect and routine line of approach to the airport,” Trump said. “The helicopter was going straight at the airplane for an extended period of time. It is a CLEAR NIGHT, the lights on the plane were blazing, why didn’t the helicopter go up or down, or turn. Why didn’t the control tower tell the helicopter what to do instead of asking if they saw the plane. This is a bad situation that looks like it should have been prevented. NOT GOOD!!!”
I don't think he read or looked at 95% of what was put in front of him to sign over the last ~10 days. They mumble a bullet point summary at him if he asks and then he just signs it. Nothing matters to him how because he's untouchable *and* surrounded by yes men.Grifman wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 1:47 am Uh, not according to the article, which says this was not vetted by top WH officials. Trump doesn't like to back down nor does he like to be wrong.
Reading all of the anti-trans EOs this week, I am reminded of how much harder it is to litigate against incompetent opposing counsel (as opposed to competent lawyers). You have to start by essentially constructing their argument for them in order to know what to counter. I suspect that is the point.
He's out there spouting his kindergartener's level of understanding of air traffic control and avionics and putting blame squarely on the Army pilots.Skinypupy wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:08 am Trump's comments after last night's plane crash where 60+ people died:
“The airplane was on a perfect and routine line of approach to the airport,” Trump said. “The helicopter was going straight at the airplane for an extended period of time. It is a CLEAR NIGHT, the lights on the plane were blazing, why didn’t the helicopter go up or down, or turn. Why didn’t the control tower tell the helicopter what to do instead of asking if they saw the plane. This is a bad situation that looks like it should have been prevented. NOT GOOD!!!”
Can he just not be a gaping, raging asshole spreading conspiracy theories and casting blame for once in his entire fucking life? Maybe act with even a fraction of the decency that we would expect from any fellow human being, much less the President of the United States?
It's rhetorical...we all know he can't.
I don't know the legal ins and outs of Australia and those other countries, but it's blatantly unconstitutional to hold prisoners indefinitely without due process in the US - even if they ship them to Guantanamo. (Holding prisoners from Iraq and Afghanistan there was considered different because they were more like prisoners of war, which is a bullshit argument with respect to undocumented immigrants, but I suspect the administration will try to make it anyway.)waitingtoconnect wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 3:12 am Australia has done this for years. They’ll lock up people in surrounding countries indefinitely if their home country won’t take them back (and often they won’t). Other parts of south east asia do the same; or worse - they will shoot you if you try and enter illegally.
The whole illegal immigrants to Gitmo thing is just an excuse to build a black site for political prisoners. It allows them to build out the a facility larger enough to hold 30K prisoners (it's going to be built separately from the existing "GWoT" facility) and creates the plausable traffic that allows handfuls of US citizens to be transported unnoticed.ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:43 amI don't know the legal ins and outs of Australia and those other countries, but it's blatantly unconstitutional to hold prisoners indefinitely without due process in the US - even if they ship them to Guantanamo. (Holding prisoners from Iraq and Afghanistan there was considered different because they were more like prisoners of war, which is a bullshit argument with respect to undocumented immigrants, but I suspect the administration will try to make it anyway.)waitingtoconnect wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 3:12 am Australia has done this for years. They’ll lock up people in surrounding countries indefinitely if their home country won’t take them back (and often they won’t). Other parts of south east asia do the same; or worse - they will shoot you if you try and enter illegally.
That is what they're trying to say, but it has no basis in the Constitution or in legal precedent. Any "international rights" would be anything we agreed to in a treaty, and I'm sure Trump would simply ignore any of those elements he doesn't want to follow.hepcat wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:50 am But isn't part of what Trump and his administration are doing is trying to show that illegal aliens have no rights as set down by the U.S. and thus all bets are off?
Are there international rights that would step in to supplant the loss of those U.S. rights?
I'm neither a lawyer nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, obviously.
That was by choice, you know I gave you the option to stay.hepcat wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:50 am I'm neither a lawyer nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, obviously.
To the courts:It’s important to state up top that I have no idea what’s going on with the federal funding freeze. Anybody who tells you they do, be they a lawyer, judge, journalist, congressperson, or White House Press Secretary, is lying.
...
With that disclaimer out of the way, let me bring you up to speed on what I think is happening. On Monday, Trump ordered a freeze on functionally all federal funding (except Medicare and Social Security). The order was a clear violation of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, the US Constitution, basic civics, good government, common sense, and any applicable cosmic standards discouraging unchecked chaos. To enforce the order, the Office of Management and Budget sent out a two-page memo of incoherent gobbledygook.
...
From where I sit, there are two reasons for the “recission” of the OMB memo. The first is to deflect attention from Trump’s immediately unpopular policy of preventing people who rely on Medicaid from getting basic health care in order to stop the University of Wisconsin from hiring Black people.
...
The second reason for the rescission is to moot the court cases against the policy. I mentioned a few days ago on Bluesky that one of the fundamental problems with challenging Trump’s policies in court is that he changes those policies daily, sometimes hourly. Even a court that moves as fast as humanly possible cannot keep pace with an administration that changes what it’s doing every time the sun goes down and Stephen Miller emerges from his crypt.
Where this finally ends up and what I think the whole point is:But I’ve also said, many times, that the arrogance and incompetence of Trump and the know-nothings he employs will always be our greatest ally. Here, the ally whose heroic incompetence likely saved the day is Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt. She tweeted that the memo was rescinded to “end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s [sic] on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
Translation: Rescinding the OMB memo does not reflect any change in policy or implementation, but was just done to get around the court order putting a stop to it.
There's more to the article and I'm likely doing it a disservice by cutting it up, but I think he's on target.Always remember, Roberts wants Trump to succeed, and will do everything in his power to make him succeed. He just doesn’t want to be forced to look like a complete schmuck while doing it.
