dhork @ dhork @lemmy.world

Posts

12

Comments

4,662

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'd love it if you were right, and this is what breaks Trump's stranglehold on the electorate. but the advantage Trump and his friends have is that they have no shame, and lie with impunity. Those lies are attractive. Even now, I am reading that Trump released a statement saying that the troops are quelling the unrest in LA, while the Mayor says no troops have arrived. Which do you think folks in the Conservative Cinematic Universe believe?

It's hard to break these folks out of their bubble when the side pushing the bubble can lie without consequences. Their opposition has the burden of logical consistency to overcome.

The pattern I see is that most on "the right" here will not be able to break out of their disinformation bubble unless it affects them personally. So only the small portion who have seen someone they know ("one of the good ones") harassed by ICE will respond.

I mean, this is technically exactly that, albeit in a much more limited scope.

The last time this was invoked was in 1965, during civil rights demonstrations in Alabama. But the Federal Government sent in the troops to protect the demonstrators from their local police.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/march-20/lbj-sends-federal-troops-to-alabama

This time it's the other way around.

This is the language from the law that would permit the President to mobilize National Guard troops in a state without its Governor's consent.

Edited to add: found the law here, it's small and easy to read: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleE-partII-chap1211-sec12406.htm

If it is invoked, it says:

Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States

But I parse that "shall" to mean the Governor is forced to comply.

They are under the direction of each state's governor, but could be mobilized into duty by the President under specific circumstances. In fact, many units were sent to Iraq and Afghanistan during those conflicts.

It's unclear, though, whether the President has any ability to direct troops from one state to conduct activities in another. That may require the governor's of both states to actually do the mobilization. However, there are a bunch of Republican states who would be happy exchanging troops to help arrest brown people.

Their response should be

Passport cards should be trivially easy for government officials to validate, if they care to. Border agents can, after all. Simply confiscating them and saying "they're fake" shows they don't care whether it is fake or not.

If you have any melanin at all, you should carry your passport card with you at all times, but also keep your full passport at home, in a location that your family and/or trusted friends know about, so they can produce it when ICE comes for you and confiscates your passport card.

Remember, his cronies have already uploaded every department's data to Starlink, which I believe is directly compromised by Russia (as well as other foreign actors). Imagine the chaos that Russia can do here if they start weaponizing all those SSNs....

Each country sets their own laws, so it's ultimately up to the destination country. When an ordinary citizen visits another country, they have to meet requirements for entry, but countries can negotiate any terms their government allows them to. So as long as the US government works out terms with the other country in aadvance, they can send anyone.

The US government does have an advantage other countries lack: we have military bases all over the world, including a lot of "shithole countries". There are separate agreements negotiated over the use of that land, but I bet that the US can send whoever they want there without declaring to fhe local authorities who they are. Then the US can "conveniently" lose track of them and.... poof! No more undesirables....

There is an important and subtle distinction to be made here. A lot of noise is made calling people who are here without authorization "illegals", but that's not always true. Being present in the country without authorization is not automatically a criminal matter. It is true that many of the avenues for being here without authorization (crossing illegally, overstaying a visa) also violate the law, but that is handled as a separate matter.

Since immigration status is mostly a civil matter, ot a criminal one, these immigration courts are not under the Judicial Branch, like criminal courts are. They are actually "administrative courts" which are part of the Department of Justice, under the President, just like ICE is.

So while the courts occasionally provide a check on this Predident's power, the immigration courts never will. They ultimately report to the President through the DoJ, and the President has much more direct influence over it. So it doesn't surprise me that these people are stuck in a Kafkaesque hell, where ICE ignore their pleas that they are citizens and says "tell it to the judge", and when they finally get to the judge they get ignored.

Is it any wonder that Trump was so dead set against the immigration bill last year? He needed the process to stay chaotic, in order to have a better chance of winning.

Donald Trump's new Personnel Director:

But if I remember from back in the day, the DMCA doesn't have any exception for that. This is why CD ripping was legal, while DVD ripping was not. It had nothing to do with fair use or backups, but rather that DVDs have encryption, and CDs do not. Circumventing that encryption for any reason was illegal.

I don't think it has changed, but it's been a hot minute since the Cypherpunks all wore DeCSS T-Shirts....

I think ripping DVDs is still technically illegal, even though CSS has long since been broken. It is still illegal to circumvent encryption in a copy protection scheme, even if it's for your own personal use and the encryption scheme has been pwned.

I bet if he didn't mention that his videos were ripped from DVD, they might have left it up.

What about "Steve Bannon, WoW Gold Farmer"....

"unfortunate episode"?

That sounds exactly like what Putin would say about someone before he throws them in the gulag....

They're both shitty, but as to who's the shittiest, that clearly goes to Elon. Trump has never used his kids as human shields. Trump's kids tolerate him enough as adults to be business partners with him.

And while Trump has made clear that he finds his daughter attractive, I don't think it's in a pedo way, but rather in a "Look what I made" way. Somehow, in his mind, having a hot daughter makes him more Alpha. (No word on what Tiffany thinks of this.)

A lot of good advice here! One thing I would add is that large international flights typically board early. So your long-haul flight to Seoul may board 45 minutes or more in advance. And since you are in Business Class, you will board earlier than most.

My advice would be that once you arrive in Munich, check your phone (or look at the departure screens) to find out what gate your Seoul flight is leaving from, then go there right away. No rush, but don't hit the gift shop just yet. Once you get there, the screens at the gate should tell you when the boarding time is (or you can ask the gate staff.). Once you confirm that, you can leave for the restroom, grab a quick snack, or go shopping.

You shouldn't have to worry about a full meal because they normally feed you well in business class. (Free booze, also, if that is your thing.)

And the other bought one

"I bought him fair and square, but now he's defective. Can I get a refund?"