Trump's Second Term

nobody even told him about this chat. he found out from the press when they asked him about it. and did nothing.

he's not in charge.
 
Aridas said:
Of course. Forgive many of us for being a bit numb to it, though. Trump's last Administration was absurdly cruel and horrible, even to his supporters, much less to those like the Kurds who he literally disarmed and betrayed to people who wanted to commit genocide against them. There were also metaphorical neon signs flashing and alarms blaring to draw attention to the signs that he would be even worse the second time around, yet so very many voted for him anyways. The Trump Administration did something cruel and horrible? Yeah, it's a day of the week. It's not like my firm opposition to the Trump Administration's bad behavior is going to change.
Click to expand...
My point wasn't what people on ISF think. My point is the news coverage of the strike - and news coverage in general. All nations tend to less concerned about the lives of citizens of other countries, but the U.S. point of view is extreme in this respect. Not just now but for ever, U.S. news may be concerned (or at least feign concern) about 'our boys in uniform serving their country' or whatever you call them while killing off people all over the world - not just their boys in uniform but civilians, too.
This is not about being numb to it. It's about the killing of people in other countries being entirely irrelevant to the point of view of Americans.
I didn't watch the entire official hearing about the Signal chat, but is there any chance that this came up at all? All I saw from the people asking questions was the concern about the national interests of the USA.
Aridas said:
"All Lives Matter" was an attempt to undermine and de-legitimize "Black Lives Matter" at a superficial slogan level. Nothing more. The principle invoked has value, of course, but those who actually made it a thing are rather notorious for invoking principles like that only when it suits them and discarding them the moment that they're put to the test.
Click to expand...
I know what All Lives Matter was. I know that it was MAGA's way of saying that black lives don't matter and that black people had no right to be concerned about their lives and shouldn't be so selfish and unconcerned about white lives. In the case of the Signal chat, it becomes obvious that the lives of foreigners don't matter. And I don't see Democrats or 'the Radical Left' being any more concerned about the lives of the foreigners killed in the strike against the Houthis than MAGA (aren't).
I can imagine how the U.S. media would react if the Houthis killed a non-combatant (or a combatant) U.S. citizen.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
. I am not aware of any other activities, nor it is obvious how an Op-Ed could say anything that is not protected speech.
Click to expand...
Protected speech only applies to US citizens, they have already said that.

Even then it only applies if it aligns with Donald.
 
dirtywick said:
nobody even told him about this chat. he found out from the press when they asked him about it. and did nothing.
he's not in charge.
Click to expand...
He is obviously in charge whether he knows about it or not.
If he did in this case in hard to tell. It wouldn't be the first time he pretended not to know about something that everybody knows that he knew about. It is unlikely that he didn't know about the strike, but it's possible that he didn't pay more attention to this particular one:
Trump warns Iran will face 'dire' consequences unless Houthi attacks stop (BBC, Mar 18, 2025)
The Pentagon said it had struck 30 targets in Yemen since Saturday, in the biggest US military operation in the Middle East since Trump returned to the White House.
Click to expand...
The only thing we know for sure is that he wasn't one of the people in the Signal chat. I assume he didn't want to be in it.
 
dudalb said:
And his Nacrisstitic Ego is why he and Musk will have a breaking point.
As more and more people make the President Musk comment it will get to Trump. And that Musk is, behind closed doors,not much likes by most GOPers in Congress will influence Trump.
And there are signs that Trump has reigned in Musk in some areas.
I think that Musk's going after social security might be the breaking point.
Click to expand...

So, what happens then? Once the breaking point has been reached? Because I can't see it getting any better at that point.

There's four years of this stuff and, it seems, no way it can or wll be reigned in.
 
“The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had — he has already spent two of his ten presidential years in prison for fraud.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

I think I'd prefer Zaphod.
 
dann said:
My point wasn't what people on ISF think. My point is the news coverage of the strike - and news coverage in general.
Click to expand...

*sigh* You literally asked -
dann said:
Does anybody in the USA, I mean, anybody at all, find something like this appalling?
Click to expand...
If you actually want to talk about the news coverage, that is NOT a reasonable question to ask.

dann said:
All nations tend to less concerned about the lives of citizens of other countries, but the U.S. point of view is extreme in this respect. Not just now but for ever, U.S. news may be concerned (or at least feign concern) about 'our boys in uniform serving their country' or whatever you call them while killing off people all over the world - not just their boys in uniform but civilians, too.
Click to expand...

Perhaps more to the point, the Republican Party POV is extreme. When the relatively recent GOP response to news of the outright murder of civilians in certain contexts, both foreign and domestic, has often been to reward the murderers with fame, money, and political interference to prevent punishment, that doesn't really incentivize lots more coverage coming from those who don't want the GOP to do that ◊◊◊◊ yet again.

dann said:
This is not about being numb to it. It's about the killing of people in other countries being entirely irrelevant to the point of view of Americans.
Click to expand...

It's perhaps worth saying that it mattered to the Biden Administration and Democrats were largely quite fine with it mattering to the Biden Administration.
 
3point14 said:
“The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had — he has already spent two of his ten presidential years in prison for fraud.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

I think I'd prefer Zaphod.
Click to expand...
OT but a heads up for those who can get the Sky Arts channel that there's a documentary about Douglas Adams on at 8 pm tonight.

www.radiotimes.com

Douglas Adams predicted our digital world – AI and all – but "found life extraordinarily difficult"

John Lloyd on his friend, the satirical writer and tech visionary Douglas Adams.
www.radiotimes.com
 
FIRE's Sarah McLaughlin wrote, "And on Friday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted that he “will continue to cancel the visas of those whose presence or activities have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for our country.” This justification should set off a warning bell for anyone concerned about protecting freedom of expression in the U.S. There is effectively no limiting principle around speech that would allegedly “undermine diplomatic efforts.” Can legal immigrants in the United States discuss human rights violations in Xinjiang or Hong Kong, even though doing so could theoretically imperil tariff talks or trade negotiations with China? What about criticism of the notion that Canada should become the “51st state”? Can Ukrainian immigrants criticize the actions of President Vladimir Putin while the U.S. is involved in talks between Russia and Ukraine?"
 
Chris_Halkides said:
The Guardian reported, "Rumeysa Ozturk, a doctoral student in Boston detained on Tuesday by federal immigration agents...I am not aware of any other activities, nor it is obvious how an Op-Ed could say anything that is not protected speech.
Click to expand...
Here is the Op-Ed that appeared in the Tufts University School newspaper.

I found a 2003 article by David Cole in a law journal that stated in part, "In classrooms, courts, workplaces, private associations, and town hall meetings, noncitizens and citizens routinely find themselves side-by-side. If noncitizens did not have the same First Amendment rights to express themselves as citizens, the conversations in each of these settings would be considerably less free. If my foreign law students were not as free as their U.S. citizen classmates to speak their minds, the classroom dialogue would be impoverished. And if Peter Jennings, until recently a Canadian citizen, were unable to speak as freely as Dan Rather, a United States citizen, we would all suffer. Nor does it make sense to maintain, as the United States government has, that foreign nationals enjoy full First Amendment freedoms except when facing the immigration power. It makes no sense to say that a foreign national has a First Amendment right to criticize government officials or to join political groups without fear of criminal prosecution, but that he may be deported for the same activities. Just as one cannot be a little bit pregnant, a foreign national cannot be a little bit restricted in his or her right to speak."
 
Trebuchet said:
As I said a few days ago, she make Sean Spicer look brilliant. But as Trump basically just said, she's his type.
Click to expand...

Given the way that Leavitt, Hegseth, Waltz and others have all immediately responded to probing questions with "that judge/reporter/dem is scum", absolutely mirroring the turnip's method of response, it's pretty clear his staff have the memo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom