jas007

Propaganda. They aren't all "reading from the same script," but they were all programed by way of the same propaganda apparatus. The powers that be bought and paid for mainstream media outlets and essentially controlled all the so-called "news." And the agenda was clear: Trump was a threat to the human race and a threat to "democracy." A man to be stopped at any cost. A man who could never again occupy the White House for any reason. Couple that agenda with a large portion of the population conditioned to "trust the authorities" and "follow the rules" and you have brainwashed people. People who will believe just about anything they've been programed to believe. It's a dangerous combination. But the powers that be lost control of the narrative. Mainstream media was no longer the only media game in town, and they could no longer dictate the "news." That's how Elon Musk became equally dangerous to the powers that be. He bought Twitter and he actually believed in the concept of free speech. Imagine that! Free speech in America. What a crazy notion. And we saw what they did to Elon and Tesla. Those same people who now vilify Musk used to think Tesla cars were the best thing since sliced bread. Saving the planet with electric cars. Fighting climate change. Silly or not, that was the message at one time. And then, for no logical reason, Musk was another evil enemy. Tesla cars were vandalized. Saving the planet was no longer a priority. Fighting climate change was no longer a priority. The real priority? Protecting trillions of dollars of corruption money. Wars are very profitable for many people and those people want to keep the money flowing in their direction. Now what? Has Trump lost the plot? How big is his new budget proposal and what portion of that money is for more war?

Of course, if you can read, you must have read my post. I said "over the past month." And you can see the chart I posted, I presume. Tesla hit a recent bottom and is trending up. At lest that's the recent trend. And if you want to play games with charts, what does this trend look like to you? Looks like up to me. You can drive yourself nuts worrying about short to intermediate term noise. More than a few billionaires have gone broke trying to short Tesla. It's a losing game. And as to whether I should be in the stock market? I'm up YTD in a fairly significant way, and for the past 12 months, almost 300%. And you?

I think I've seen other pictures of the guy with more of a Stetson hat. Anyway, it's silly to argue about a hat. He's part of Bangkok history.

A few more. I guess they qualify.

I can count on two or three fingers the number of McDonald's I've eaten at in the past 10 years, and even on those occasions, it was only for a cup of coffee and an Egg McMuffin. I'm not sure I can remember the last time I had a Big Mac or fries. Maybe 25 years ago when I was driving across the SW USA on some interstate and there was a McDonald's. A huge restaurant and probably the only restaurant for 100 miles in either direction. I didn't have much choice. I was really hungry. Usually, if I'm trying to eat that kind of food, there'll be a Wendy's around somewhere, which I like better, or some other burger joint. Burger King, Whataburger, Carl's Jr., Hardee's, etc.

Well, over the past month, the market doesn't seem to be much worried about the big picture for Tesla. The stock has been trending higher.

So, the rules for this new type of visa have yet to be published, but at this time you can get an investor visa if you invest about $50,000? But he doesn't really say what the term of the visa would be. 1-10 years is a big spread.

Not exactly. Due process may mean "whatever process is due" under the circumstances, but sometimes, it's not just that a decision is made at a certain point, but that it's all you get under that particular setup. For example, under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, hearing rights may be limited, or, a person's formal appeal process may be curtailed. In other words, the process stops, not because a decision has been made, but because that's all the process available.

An actual law, not an executive order. Of course, so was the Alien Exclusion Act.

Go ahead. Make us a flowchart. Did you ever hear the term "variable due process"? Or do you want to twist logic and contend that all due process is the same because it's called due process?

The Trump team seems to think it can be a foreign policy issue. We'll see how the court eventually addresses it all. Remember, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to proceed under the Alien Exclusion Act, while recognizing a due process right. Deportations under the Act could continue with procedural safeguards. So, when the issue comes up in the cases currently on appeal, the court may well buy the argument that the president has some latitude in conducting foreign policy.

Just a few posts ago, you were claiming that people always received the same process: "There may be different outcomes but it is the same process."

Don't forget the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA), signed by Bill Clinton. A streamlined legal process for some people, to be sure.

Didn't Bangkok Dangerous also contain some bar scenes? Actually, three are two versions of Bangkok Dangerous. The original, and the more recent one with Nicholas Cage.

I'm pretty sure Russia doesn't really want to occupy all of Ukraine, and it doesn't have to come to that. At this point, Russia would be happy with what it's already taken, among other demands.

I don't know who you encounter. I think I see a lot of people here on vacation, and a tropical beach probably beats Siberia or some other freezing place in the middle of the winter. They seem happy and relaxed to me. If some of them don't seem too friendly when they're out and about, maybe that's a cultural thing?

If gambling wasn't illegal here, I'd like to make some money on a bet about that. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I know what schools I've attended, what degrees I have, and where I've worked. If I had to do any of it over again, I'd probably figure out something else to do, but I can't go back.

Sure, but Trump drew Zelenskyy into a deal of sorts, so maybe that's "progress"? Then, threaten Zelenskyy with cutting off further aid unless he concedes to certain of Russia's conditions. Maybe all of them.

Trump must know it's a ridiculous agreement on its face. What's his real motive? Sign a paper, any paper, so long as Zelenskyy also signs, and then begin the real negotiations with Russia?

I will say this: it is possible that the court narrowly addresses the issue of the applicability of the Alien Enemies Act with respect to Trump's deportation efforts. If so, they won't reach the issue of his conduct of US foreign policy. So yes, the court could do that, but then what? That sounds to me like the easy way out of a bad situation. Normal judicial restraint, to be sure, but I think they would want to settle the issue for the sake of the country. The political system is broken. Leaving the matter alone as a "political question" would be too bad for the country.

Biden never attempted to do anything much, except fund the war for Ukraine. At least Trump tried, I guess. Still, it seems silly. Make a deal with Zelenskyy that he should know full well Russia will never accept. Maybe that's the point. Appear to do something, even if that something doesn't change anything.

So the Neocons got to Trump and now the war continues with US support? And with a deal that is unacceptable to Russia? All paid for by US taxpayers, once again. That's too bad. Unless it's all part of some larger negotiating tactic, it sure doesn't sound to me like "ending the war in 24 hours." What happened to "stop the killing"? It doesn't make much sense to me.

Go back and read again. And keep in mind that you have to look at the context and the constitutional structure. Even the US Supreme Court has recognized the president's role in conducting US foreign policy. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936). It's well settled law at this point. Of course, if you think you can make an argument that the power to conduct U.S foreign policy should rest with any random federal district court judge, I'll wait.

Changing your tune all of a sudden? First you made it seem as though "the people" had spoken and the constitution was clear. Now you change your tune. And for what it's worth, "the people" elected Donald Trump and that very same Donald Trump has a constitutional duty to conduct US foreign policy. And that's exactly what he's trying to do. I'm willing to wait for a final court ruling. Maybe you should consider doing that as well, before you make yourself look any more ridiculous.

You need to make some effort to understand the factors a court will typically weigh in determining whether a temporary injunction is appropriate. And if such an order is issued, why such an order is not a decision on the merits. The issues are not the same. So, look it all up, try to understand, and try again.