jas007

Doubt all you want, I don't really care. And, I'm well aware of how the system works. I know all about the different levels of the judiciary and how it works. That's pretty basic stuff. I also know that eventually, the Supreme Court will take the case and make a decision. And if they do take the case, I seriously doubt they will decide that the President of the United States doesn't have a lot of leeway in conducting US foreign policy. Could they decide that the Alien Enemies Act doesn't apply in this contest? Perhaps. But then what? Throw the country into turmoil? Fifteen million illegal aliens in the USA and each and every one of those people is entitled to a due process hearing with full appeal rights? Imagine how silly that is. I think you must mean well, but you really don't understand the issues.

I'm not Ukrainian. I've never lived in Ukraine. I've never even visited Ukraine. But I'm pretty sure Russia could overrun the entire country if that's what they wanted to do. But they don't. To think they do is silly. Nor do they want to continue on and re-establish the old Soviet Union or occupy all of Europe. The old Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to hold it all together. They won't try that again. As I understand it, Russia's primary concern is to establish a situation whereby they have a neutral buffer zone with no possibility of NATO missiles and no possibility of any other kind of foreign missiles on the Russian border. Putin has been saying that for years. And it makes sense. Short and intermediate range missiles give their enemy an advantage, as parts of Russia's strategic defense systems would be compromised. So that's one of their objectives. In addition, they want a "de-Nazification" of Ukraine. I guess they've had enough of those people over the years. They still remember Hitler. They won't let that happen again. Makes sense to me. And they want the international community to recognize the fact that parts of what used to be Ukraine are now Russian. Reality. Ukraine won't get that territory back. Give them that, stop the war, and stop the killing. That's the best Ukraine can expect, I'm afraid. Or do you think we should have to have WW III because Russia won and the world isn't fair?

The Supreme Court is the law. Fixed it for you.

I have a law degree. I've worked for the Justice Department. And you?

Until the Supreme Court puts a stop to the nonsense.

Sure, so long as you want to pretend Article II of the US Constitution doesn't exist. This isn't simply a separation of powers issue. We all know how that works, or we should. Marbury v. Madison. Perhaps you don't? You imply the judiciary is an "equal power." Yes and no. By design, the power is there for the courts to rule on the law. But don't forget where that power came from. That power is derived from the US Constitution, which also, in the case of foreign policy, gives the President to power to conduct such foreign policy, within certain limits. So, the issue is not as simple as you seem to think it is. You can't have it both ways. You seem to like the judicial review established by the constitutional set-up and recognized by the Supreme Court, any yet when the Constitution gives the president a power, somehow that power no longer matters? That it's a matter for any federal judge to rule upon? Nice try, but no cigar. In my opinion, the Supreme Court will have no choice but to determine that the president does indeed have the authority to conduct US foreign policy, with the advice and consent of the senate as set out in Article II. Were it otherwise, the US might as well forget about having a foreign policy. You think that's a good idea? Remember, some day the shoe may be on the other foot and you'll be screaming to high heaven for the President to take hold of the situation and do something.

And that's beside the point, right? The issue is not who appointed the judge. The issue is whether a low level federal judge can negate the power of the US President to conduct foreign policy. And, as I've said, such a policy would be stupid on its face. No matter what a President does, there will always be people who disagree with him. Why should those people be able to simply file a law suit to stop the President? The net result would be a paralysis of foreign policy. Nobody running the show.

This is hardly news. And the issue is far from settled. The litigation continues. What you may come to find out is that lower level federal judges will not be allowed to stop the President of the USA from conducting US foreign policy. Were it otherwise, imagine what that would mean. Don't like a Presidential policy? No problem, just shop for a judge and file a lawsuit. You win, the President loses. That's not going to fly with the Supreme Court. It's stupid on its face.

No one needed to be a medical doctor to know what was going on back then. All you had to do was pay attention and read publicly available information. Many doctors didn't have much choice. They could go along with the program or lose their jobs. Truly amazing. Propaganda works. And the doctors who spoke out and told the truth? Banished.

I won't pretend to know anything about the Thailand economy or whether it's becoming an "economic basket case." I do think, however, that from a US perspective, Thailand is important in a geopolitical sense, and so Thailand might be spared the brunt of whatever tariffs Trump might otherwise propose. I guess you must know that the U-Tapo airbase was built by the USA during the Vietnam war era, and can handle B-52s and the like. That's strategically important.

"Marginal gains." No Nazis in Ukraine? LOL What surprises me is how anyone who actually supports Ukraine is OK with a US proxy war in which Ukrainians die to the last Ukrainian for a bunch of Neocon nutcases who couldn't care less about Ukraine, Ukrainians, or Ukrainian "democracy." What you're going to end up with is no Ukraine at all and thousands of more dead Ukrainian kids.

Do you really believe that? Anyway, what I believe doesn't matter. What you believe doesn't matter. The reality will be played out in realtime, on the ground. And in reality, and after three years of support from the USA and the EU, where is Ukraine now? Begging for more help, with large parts of Ukraine already lost. A nonsensical deal between Trump and Zelenskyy won't change that. Thousands more young people might die for no good reason, but that's about it. It's too bad. Young people in the prime of their life, gone, because some people can't accept reality.

The agreement would be all well and good in a fantasyland where Russia has not already won the war. But an agreement, without more, does not trump reality. And the reality is that Russia holds all the cards, so to speak. It's not a matter of selling Ukraine to Russia. Russia already won. Anyway, we'll have to see how it plays out, but I'm afraid the longer the charade goes on, the worse it will be for Ukraine. Right now, they have a chance to save what's left of Ukraine. Maybe they should accept that and move on.

Even with continued America support, Ukraine can't win. So far, even with all the support they received, they lost. It's over. So what's Trump really doing with this "deal"? It's not a deal to end the war at all. And if Russia doesn't agree, then what? Nobody is going to be mining anything. No "reconstruction" will take place. The entire country of Ukraine will be lost. Maybe Trump is just going through the motions to satisfy the nutcase Neocons. He knows full well the deal is no deal, but he can say he "tried" and it didn't work. At that point, the real negotiations can begin.

I'm sorry. I guess I just don't know where that is. I'm at Wongamat beach and I don't see anything like that.

I don't think it's a serous effort by Trump to do anything much. He must surely know Russia won't sign onto such an agreement. As for Zelenskyy and Putin? Without US support, Zelenskyy is finished. Everyone knows that, including Zelenskyy. Even the EU knows that. Or, if they don't they will surely find out.

Most importantly, it won't be agreed to by Russia, at least not in its present form. And if Russia doesn't agree, what does Trump have, really? Nothing. And he won't be able to sell "nothing" to anyone, including his supporters. The idea is to end the war, not continue the war.

I wouldn't call it "seeing the light." More like seeing a bunch of nonsense that won't be taken seriously by Russia and won't end the war in any event. The chances of this "deal" with Zelenskyy being agreed to by Russia are nil. So, what is Trump up to? Just pretending to go along with the warmonger program to please the Neocon elements? He must know the "deal" will never fly. The war s already over, Russia won. I guess we all get to find out what Trump is up to sometime soon.

From what's being reported, the so-called "deal" doesn't end the war, is a bad deal for America as it's America who will end up paying, and isn't anything that Russia would agree to, in any event. Why would they? The reconstruction of Ukraine, continued American military support, and Americans profiting only from future operations to mine Ukraine's resources? Who profits? Blackrock. The big banks. The warmongers. My only guess is that Trump knows this will not fly but is taking a baby step towards getting Zelenskyy to cave.

Meaning, I presume, that 1 in 3 trillion is pretty close to a sure thing?

??????????/ What's wrong with staying fully invested? And let's say you do that and don't make a lot of portfolio adjustments. How do "brokers fees" fit into that situation? Your broker makes nothing unless you have a margin account and they loan out your shares for a fee.

Just out of curiosity, what restaurants and in which part of Wongamat beach?

I'll have to go back and look. I remember one time you wanted "sources" for something or other. I wasn't about to waste all day looking for "sources." And by now you should know what I think about "sources." Finding fake news to prove that fake news is fake news is an exercise in futility.

Seriously. How is this even an issue? Who cares? How much does Thailand make from "dual pricing"? Who sits in their home country and decides whether or not to visit Thailand based on the admission price to a national park?

Again. I agree. But we're talking about Trump. He doesn't care about short term consequences. He cares about winning. All he has to do is stay the course. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. The alternative would not be pretty.