The Trump Presidency 2.0
- Thread starter Box
- Start date
I'm going to give my right hand a break, the left hand GF could use a few dates.
Well, this was interesting. New Zealand's high commissioner to the UK got fired over a comment he made about the president of America.
Top New Zealand diplomat fired for what he said about Trump
I'll be honest, if that was the extent of the shenanigans I'm not sure that's what I'd consider a fireable offense. But maybe the now-former diplomat had a long-running case of TDS and this was just the last straw.
At the same time though, imagine losing your prestigious and presumably well-paying international-level job simply because you couldn't not insult the leader of your country's most important ally.
...at least the Finnish foreign minister had enough sense to not jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon:
Hm, imagine that, not going out of your way to insult someone that your country is probably going to need something from real soon.
Top New Zealand diplomat fired for what he said about Trump
I'll be honest, if that was the extent of the shenanigans I'm not sure that's what I'd consider a fireable offense. But maybe the now-former diplomat had a long-running case of TDS and this was just the last straw.
At the same time though, imagine losing your prestigious and presumably well-paying international-level job simply because you couldn't not insult the leader of your country's most important ally.
...at least the Finnish foreign minister had enough sense to not jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon:
Hm, imagine that, not going out of your way to insult someone that your country is probably going to need something from real soon.
Jaknight
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2018
- Messages
- 729
if this is true wow it’s a new sunken low Trump Planning On Canceling Legal Status For 240,000 Ukrainians Who Fled War With Russia, Report Says
If Ukraine is short of bodies and they are snatching guys off the street. Send those that meet the draft guidelines home. I don't agree with a blanket removal, lots are legitimate war refugees (women and children, families). But any young single women and men, should be sent home to fight.
Or if a peace agreement can be met, there's no reason to stay. Go rebuild your country.
Except that not how it's worked since WWII. I'm sure there are some one-offs, but if you're granted asylum, you stay. That's the point of granting asylum.
Or, alternatively, "Trump refuses deserters, Ukraine in Dire Need of Fighters".
I thought these brave nationalist Ukrainians were worthy of our praise because of their willingness to fight for their country?
We have to get you to a position here and off the sidelines. It's easy to critique (we know, Orange Man is bad and my morals aren't); it's a bit harder when you sign your name to something.
If you want Ukraine to keep fighting, they need people. Zelensky doesn't want peace; he said he wants to fight forever until Russia is no more. America isn't down with that. To keep fighting, Zelensky needs fighting-age males. We all have to make hard choices, and if Zelensky is to be believed, he needs men. These "temporary protected status" males should stop working in the US, stop taking our resources, and return home and fight for their country.
OR, and this jives well with the 6-10M Ukrainians that have fled since 2022- we admit that Ukrainians are overwhelmingly "over" this whole thing and we need to find a way to end the war. Those two positions are mutually exclusive.
From the article- "The Department of Homeland Security designates countries for Temporary Protected Status if their residents are unable to return home safely. The acting Homeland Security secretary can designate a country for TPS if the country has an ongoing armed conflict, an environmental disaster, an epidemic or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.” (Bolded is mine).
Do you think they can't return safely? I can post as many Instagram thot pages of people partying 7 nights a week in Kiev as you'd like. OR do you think they don't want to go home because goon squads are kidnapping males of all ages to head to the meat grinder?
I get it, America is awesome, Ukraine sucks, war sucks, you don't want to go home, but Trump isn't focusing on just Ukraninians, it's everyone on TPS and by extension people that are here illegally.
Jaknight
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2018
- Messages
- 729
I support Ukraine in their fight to defend themselves and believe in aiding them with equipment. The Ukrainians should have extended their draft, but kicking out men, women, and children after granting them asylum is nothing more than a bully tactic from Trump. To me, it’s a terrible act with no justification.
Update on the SC ruling re: Trump and USAID payments. I'll summarize.
If the outrage squad wanted to focus on this egregious display of checks and balances, government fraud/waste/abuse, lawfare and the like, that would be great, but it's not happening because people don't actually care about standards, norms, the constitution or any of that if they can't use it as a cudgel to call Orange Man Bad.
ETA- ACB turned out to be a super shitty appointment for SC.
- Trump freezes $2B in USAID funding, alleging the payments aren't valid.
- An unelected judge from a lower district court (Amir Ali) directs the federal government to continue the payment, completely absent proper legal standing (no one is named as the harmed individual in the case, the judge just unilaterally said "USAID good, Trump bad, pay the $2B).
- Trump pushes back and heads to the SC.
- SC rules 5-4 not on the validity of the payments themselves or their legality, but that a lower district court can order the Executive Branch (headed by the only person in American politics voted for by the entire American body, mind you) to do a thing.
- Part of Alito's dissent- “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Alito wrote. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise.”
- At time of this post, we don't know (or I can't find it) what's actually being funded.
If the outrage squad wanted to focus on this egregious display of checks and balances, government fraud/waste/abuse, lawfare and the like, that would be great, but it's not happening because people don't actually care about standards, norms, the constitution or any of that if they can't use it as a cudgel to call Orange Man Bad.
ETA- ACB turned out to be a super shitty appointment for SC.
Last edited:
Let's focus on the fighting age males. I will meet you at your appeal to emotion on the women and kids, because I am a benevolent shit poster. Should the fighting-age males stay? Why is it a "terrible act", in your opinion?
Is "temporary legal status" the same as "permanent asylum?" Because it seems to me that the "temporary" part means that their status is... well.. "temporary."
Jaknight
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2018
- Messages
- 729
I want peace not war
I think it’s terrible to grant them status and then revoke it as a negotiation tactic, which is exactly what I believe Trump is doing. As for the fighting-age males who fled despite being healthy and able to defend their country—I don’t think they should have left in the first place. Should we send them back? If we’re going to continue backing Ukraine in this war until a better deal is reached, then yes, send the able-bodied men home to fight. But if we’re not, then let them stay.
Topkick
Verified Military
Send people back who support a war but don't want to fight in it, maybe their opinion of that war shifts a bit.
First bolded- ok, that's helpful.
Second bolded- Trump didn't grant them status; Mayorkas and Biden did. Each administration is not beholden to the promises (non-legislatively binding of course) of the previous admin. I agree they shouldn't have been granted status by the prior admin in the TPS function, but that's has far as I will go on that issue. Saying that we have "sunk to a new low" and calling Trump's decision "terrible" is pretty bold. The majority of Americans voted for a complete and total re-evaluation of immigration in the United States. Every swing state. Every county moved right. Popular vote. Electoral college. This is an 80/20 issue, so I am not sure I understand how (once again) Ukraine gets a pass when this applies broadly to all immigrants on TPS and those here illegally.
Third bolded- Why is their stay in America dependent on the continued support of this administration? What moral obligation does America hold to these folks? If we suppose it's a moral wrong to send them back at all, which is where we started- how are you squaring that circle by saying "It's not morally wrong if we continue to support this war, making the war longer, where these fighting age males will be put in a position to be slaughtered by an overwhelming invading force?"
If you want peace (which I 100% believe and take you at your word), I would assume your position would be, "Get Zelensky to the table right now, make peace, and let's find a path to citizenship for these asylum seekers." Instead, it looks as if you're saying, "If America prolongs this war, send the fighting-age males back to fight for their country, they shouldn't have left in the first place."
...which isn't peace- it's providing Zelensky with more folks to send to the front. Put plainly- you want peace, but if there isn't going to be peace, then you agree that fighting age males should be expelled to go to war for their country.
Am I misreading this?
The reason we aren’t ever going to see this stuff is because Epstein was a Mossad asset. You can’t turn people like Bill Clinton, but you can buy those who had direct access to those like him. So that’s what they did. And they let him and others have sex with underage girls and became compromised at that moment.
You release the Epstein stuff, Mossad unleashes all the dirt they have on our “leaders.” You will never be able to convince me of anything else.
I’m also not worried Trump is a Russian asset. I’d be less shocked if he was also compromised by Mossad.
If that hoppity-hop furry bigot is looking down on us from Internet heaven, he can rest easy knowing he was right on this one.
He can also eat a bag of dicks and fuck off to the sun, but I think he nailed Epstein as you described above.
Makes you wonder what "national security information" Pam Bondi has said she's protecting.
Also, I am going to say a thing now that goes against my overall feelings of "Just give them time, it's been 50 days, you can't boil the ocean" for this admin and people's short attention span.
I am getting impatient with Pam Bondi. It's either a gross miscalculation(s) on her part, or she's obfuscating for any number of reasons. Either way, I need outputs from DOJ.
Topkick
Verified Military
TBH, this is what I've come to expect. Nothing burgers from windbags on both sides. I hope I'm wrong.
Similar threads
