Hamus Yaigh

Utterly distasteful remarks like only a Russian boot kisser might spout. Many view the U.S.'s opportunistic approach, exploiting Ukraine’s resources while offering little for its victimization by Russia, as deeply distasteful. The U.S. absence from London peace talks may be preferable if it cannot engage constructively, avoiding further criticism for prioritizing self-interest over Ukraine’s sovereignty and security.

And there's your answer in your own words. You don't know. Stock Market: The Federal Reserve's independence is critical for investor confidence. Firing Powell would signal political interference, raising fears of mismanaged monetary policy, higher inflation, or economic instability. This uncertainty could trigger a sharp decline in stock prices, as seen in recent market drops following Trump's attacks on Powell (e.g., S&P 500 fell 2.4% on April 21, 2025). Dollar: Powell's removal could erode global trust in U.S. monetary governance, weakening the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. Investors might flee to safer assets like gold, as evidenced by the dollar hitting a three-year low after Trump's threats. Bond Sell-Offs: Firing Powell could lead investors to demand higher yields on U.S. Treasuries due to perceived risks of inflation or default, especially if Trump pushes for lower rates amid tariff-driven inflation. This would cause bond prices to fall, with yields like the 10-year Treasury already rising above 4.4%. The threat alone has already rattled markets, as seen last Monday, so Trump has since had to wind his neck in.

Unfortunately we got Trump for 4 years unless he's impeached so not that easy.

The story of most MAGA voters learning capacity.

The title "Extension (retirement) rules change?" is still misleading as there is no change at all?

Trump loyalists are stuck in their own echo-chamber along with all of his sycophants, so reality is different for them even when English is their native tongue. <deleted>

You looking to get the job? Why could someone else do a better job? You got reasons? Hunters laptop perhaps? You realize the "inflation is just temporary" remarks were made during an untested global pandemic meltdown? Today's remarks are based on self inflicted tariffs?

The claim that Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s tattoos—marijuana leaf, smiley face, cross, and skull—represent MS-13 by corresponding to "M," "S," "1," and "3" is not supported by any credible evidence and appears to be a fabricated narrative. MS-13 tattoos typically feature explicit symbols like "MS," "13," devil horns, or gang-specific phrases, not cryptic representations like a marijuana leaf or smiley face. These tattoos are generic, common in personal or cultural contexts, and unrelated to MS-13’s known iconography. No reputable source, including court documents, gang databases, or expert analyses, links these symbols to MS-13 or suggests they encode "M," "S," "1," or "3." The idea that a cross or skull is a "coverup" for gang symbols is also baseless speculation, as no prior MS-13 tattoos are documented on Garcia. This interpretation seems to have emerged to retroactively justify Trump’s misleading X post on April 18, 2025, which falsely implied these tattoos indicate MS-13 membership. The narrative is likely a post-hoc attempt to obscure the apparent doctoring of the "MS-13" knuckle tattoo and Trump’s misrepresentation of Garcia’s gang status. It’s false and unsupported.

Then onto Poland? Yeah dream on sunshine.

Of course they are real duh? They have nothing to do with MS-13. Trumps clowns photoshopped MS-13 onto his photo for X so that his tribe thinks the images of a marijuana leaf, smiley face, cross, and skull mean he was in MS-13. When you are in a hole, stop digging.

Of course it's fake. The photo posted by Donald Trump on his official X account (@realDonaldTrump) on April 18, 2025, showing Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s knuckles with an alleged "MS-13" tattoo, appears to be doctored based on visual discrepancies and lack of prior documentation of such a tattoo in court records. The claim that Garcia is an MS-13 member is also disputed, as no court has convicted him of gang-related crimes, and a federal judge noted the Trump administration provided no evidence linking him to MS-13. Trump’s assertion that "two Highly Respected Courts" confirmed Garcia’s MS-13 membership is misleading, as no such rulings are documented.

This is a photo of a real douche using his SM account to project lies and false images to get his false narrative across to his idiot tribe.

Understandable. He probably has another game of golf to attend this weekend.

Its comments like this that are so out of touch with reality, and that people holding such thoughts are allowed to vote and were in the majority last November got the USA to where it is today.

Authoritarianism. The Hitler youth of today.

A new U.S. intelligence assessment found no coordination between Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, and the Venezuelan government, contradicting statements made by Trump administration officials to justify the use of the Alien Enemies Act for deporting Venezuelan migrants. The assessment, which involved input from all 18 intelligence agencies, stated that there was minimal contact between some gang members and the Venezuelan government but no coordination or directive role. The FBI was the only agency that did not agree with the findings. The White House and the office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Trump administration can use the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants, but they must receive court hearings before being taken from the United States. Tren de Aragua, which has been linked to various crimes, was declared a foreign terrorist organization by the Trump administration.

It seems like AI generated news reports hasn't figured out how to make the story seem real and not off the fiction shelf. One of the limitations of using a LLM one might surmise.

So having all graduates come out as right wing bell ends is a good thing? Academic environments benefit from a range of viewpoints, fostering critical thinking and nuanced discussions. mericlessly (sic) eradicating a certain viewpoint in favor of only one other is for the history books. It also leads to a fall in academic standards and spelling errors as you know.

Fallen for the MAGA bait deflection hook, line and sinker.

A modern day Goebbels with the only plus being shes a bit more pleasant on the eye.

Constitutional crisis incoming! The Trump administration is escalating its legal and political risks in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, potentially digging itself into a deeper hole. On April 14, 2025, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele visited the U.S. , presenting an opportunity to negotiate Garcia’s release from CECOT prison, where he was illegally deported on March 15, 2025, despite a 2019 court order. The administration, aware of its “administrative error,” failed to act, with Bukele publicly refusing to release Garcia, calling him a “terrorist.” Instead of rectifying the mistake, the administration doubled down, using a April 16 White House briefing to platform Patty Morin, a grieving mother whose daughter was killed by an unrelated immigrant, to deflect criticism and falsely tie Garcia to MS-13, despite no credible evidence. This approach risks a constitutional crisis by defying judicial orders—Federal Judge Paula Xinis and the Supreme Court have demanded Garcia’s return, with contempt proceedings looming for non-compliance. The administration’s tactics, including violating the Leahy Law by funding El Salvador’s abusive prison system and leveraging Morin to obscure accountability, have drawn scrutiny from Democrats like Senator Chris Van Hollen, human rights groups, and media outlets like The New York Times. By prioritizing political optics over legal obligations, the administration faces growing pressure from lawsuits, congressional investigations, and public backlash, which could force accountability or deepen the crisis if Trump continues to obstruct justice.

Just in your opinion only. That doesn't make it right. Including laws like two-tier policing or freedom of speech differences as non-tariff barriers in U.S. trade policy could theoretically align with national interests by pressuring trading partners to align with U.S. values, potentially leveling the playing field where regulatory differences impact trade. For example, stricter speech laws abroad might suppress market-related expression, indirectly affecting U.S. firms. However, this risks infringing on other nations’ sovereignty, as it imposes U.S. standards on domestic legal systems, inviting retaliation and straining diplomatic ties. Tariffs traditionally address trade-specific issues—subsidies, labor costs, environmental standards—where economic impacts are clearer. Expanding tariffs to cover broader legal or cultural differences muddies the waters, likely escalating disputes beyond trade. Trade issues should dominate tariff rationale to maintain focus and avoid overreach.

His status was legal. Just like if you went to do an annual extension based on marriage at Thai Immigration and next thing you know is you are in chains and off to a prison on a country run by a dictator. You're OK with that arrangement then? I'll let Thai Imm know 🙂

The statements at the 14Apr White House meeting by Marco Rubio and Pam Bondi warrant investigation but it depends on legal and ethical thresholds, while Trump’s role—allowing and commending their remarks—raises questions of accountability. Rubio and Bondi’s statements as grounds for investigation: Rubio’s claim that the President can override a Supreme Court order misrepresents constitutional law, and Bondi’s pairing of an "administrative error" with baseless MS-13 allegations contradicts court findings. If these were deliberate misrepresentations to evade a court mandate or mislead the public, they could constitute misconduct, potentially violating federal ethics rules or laws like 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements). For example, knowingly providing false information to courts or Congress could trigger scrutiny from bodies like the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General or congressional oversight committees. The Kilmar Ábrego García case already has judicial attention—courts have rebuked the administration, and a Texas federal judge demanded daily updates on efforts to retrieve García. If evidence emerges that Rubio or Bondi intentionally misled to obstruct compliance with the Supreme Court’s order, it could escalate to calls for investigation, possibly by the House Judiciary Committee or an independent probe. However, absent concrete proof of intent (e.g., internal communications), their statements might be seen as political spin rather than criminal falsehoods, making formal investigations less likely unless new evidence surfaces. Trump’s role and commendation of Bondi: Trump’s silence during Rubio and Bondi’s remarks, coupled with his commendation of Bondi for “what a good job she was doing” after her April 14, 2025, Oval Office statements, implicates him in endorsing their narrative. As President, he’s accountable for his administration’s actions, especially since the Supreme Court explicitly ordered his administration to facilitate García’s return. His failure to correct misleading claims and his praise of Bondi could be interpreted as tacit approval of non-compliance with a court order, raising ethical concerns about abuse of power or neglect of duty. While not necessarily illegal, this behavior could fuel political or legal scrutiny, particularly given García’s ongoing detention in El Salvador and Bukele’s refusal to release him. If courts or Congress perceive Trump as obstructing justice by allowing subordinates to defy rulings, it could prompt investigations, similar to past probes into executive interference (e.g., Nixon’s Watergate-era actions). However, Trump’s defenders might argue he’s relying on advisors’ counsel, and his commendation was generic, not proof of intent to mislead. Likelihood and context: Investigations hinge on political will and evidence. With a Republican-controlled executive and a polarized Congress (as of April 2025, based on recent trends), probes into Rubio, Bondi, or Trump face hurdles unless Democrats or bipartisan actors push hard, likely citing García’s case as a human rights or due process violation. Public pressure, amplified by X posts criticizing the administration’s handling, could add momentum, but it’s not enough alone. The courts remain the strongest check—continued judicial oversight, like the Texas judge’s orders, might force accountability without a separate investigation. Trump’s history of deferring to surrogates (seen in prior cases like immigration policy defenses) suggests he’s insulating himself, making direct culpability harder to pin down. In summary, Rubio and Bondi’s statements stretch the truth enough to justify scrutiny, especially given judicial rulings, and Trump’s endorsement amplifies the issue. While investigation is plausible, particularly via congressional or judicial channels, it’s not guaranteed without clearer evidence of deliberate falsehoods or obstruction. The García case’s ongoing legal battles may drive further accountability before formal probes materialize.

Birds of a feather Trump- Bukele. #autocrats