MicroB

I thought it was usual for displayed prices in the US not to include sales tax, and resulting in sticker shock at the till. Its a tax. Don't worry, if you buy fake Scotch Whiskey, fake Waygu Beef Steaks, Missouri Champagne, the fake Ferrari kit car, its tax tariff free. No taxation without representation was how the United States started off. This is effectively a consumption tax, not pay for reinvigorated public services, but to transfer national wealth from the pocket of the working man to international bankers, mostly in Japan, United Kingdom, China, Luxembourg and Canada. Article 1, section 8 gives Congress and only Congress the right to levy taxes.

Or to avoid the chances of something going boom in the distance when he reviews the troops accompanied by whatever world leaders who turn up.

Problem is your knwledge of British political history is sadly lacking. Even before the Balfour Declaration, the Labour Party was calling for the establishment of Israel. It was the Conservative Party in the 1920s that adopted the most strident anti-Zionist position. The Labour Party back then had competing Pro-Zionist and Pro-Arab factions. Some in the Fabian society looked at it from a class warfare point of view, and perceived the Arabs as the poor. However, it was Nye Bevin and Michael Foot who in the 1950s established the Labour Party as the most pro-Isreali Party in British politics; remember, this was at a time when many in the British public were still rather ambivalent towards the new country, given the role some of its leadership had in the murder of British soldiers. Michael Foot went so far to say in Parliament to say: The shift occurred in the wake of the 6-day war. You can see that thr switch occurred because of Cold War politics, and a new faction, that included Corbyn and Ken Livingstone, took a more Anti-American view, which meant Pro-Soviet, with the Soviets supporting the Arabs. Until then, the Tories were quite a Israel-sceptic party. The Labour Party had been the natural home of the British Jewish community. With the rise the Anti-Zionist Left, Thatcher saw this as an opportunity to reshape Conservative policy into one that is basically Zionist in nature. Blair and Kinnock notably tried to tone down the voice of that hard left faction; surely your remember the prominance of Gerald Kaufman. But in the wake of the banking crisis, the UK lost its collective mind, with 40% of the vote in the general election going to Corbyn, and 51% of the vote in the Referendum pushing for Brexit. The Conservative Party has nothing to be proud of in its history. Just before the First World War, leading Tories formed the nominally anti-corruption National League for Clean Government, which sounded find until some of them started ranting about "Jewish Plutocracy". After WW1, a successor group emerged, called the Die hards, who were anti-Bolshevik and pushed "Jewish Conspiracy" theories. In the 1920s, immigratipn control occupied the minds of some Tory MPs, leading some of them to complain about posters written in Yiddish appearing in Stepney. All of this intensified throughout the 1920s and 30s. And of course, we all know Lord Halifax's sympathies towards Hitler. Even post war, in the 1945 election, some Conservative Associations were deliberately not choosing Jewish candidates. Even Edward Heath, when Prime Minister, lauched an investigation to "evaluate Zionist influence in the US and Europe". It is completely incorrect to suggest that anti-Semitism is the natural position of the Left, and, by dint, that the Right is pro-Zionist. Both sides have opposing factions, who's dominance and influence shifts with time. And we are stll suffering from the madness of the Banking Crisis in our political landscape, which in many ways has been left "non-British" (we are not a people given to extremism, ever since our blood letting in the Civil War and subsequent Regicide).

I know this is a piss take account, probably run by someone with another forum account, but Gloss reportedly joined the Russian Army because he thought it would get him a Russian passport without having to actually do any fighting. As you imply, its sad that he was apparently an anti-fascist, yet joined a fascist army. No doubt when you referred to him dying heroically, you are referencing him attempting to frag the drunken Russian officer forcing them forward. There is nothing heroic dying for Putin.

The deal struck with El Salvador commits the US to pay $6 million per year per 300 inmates received, so about $20,000 per annum. These are convicted criminals, so will be serving out their aentences, for crimes committed in the US at US expense. Many are in for life, lets assume 20 years for these 300. Now that represents some saving for the US, given the average cost of housing an inmate in the US is about $35,000, but the deal doesn't entirely relieve the US of the cost. But that's only the cost to the US in terms of payments to El Salvador. It doesn't include costs to the US military of providing the flights, plus there will be costs in likely building new US side receiving facilities; transit camps if you will., not to mention legal costs. The reported annual cost of the El Salvador prison system is $200 million. The total prison population is about 110,000. So the actual cost to El Salvador is less than $2000 per year, so this is a sweet deal for the country. No wonder its not willing to send people back The prison they are being transferred to houses at maximum 20,000 inmates. Its disengenous (or idiotic) for you to imply 400,000 inmates can be transferred there. You suggest mass execution is too expensive, Its probably a lot cheaper. The US should consult with China and Iran how they carry this out at a high tempo. I believe China now has mobile execution chambers, and in order to return value to the taxpayer, they run a lucrative organ harvesting programme (subject to screening for infectious disease). Maybe they use rejected organs for pig swill. Iran has ingeniously used commerical construction equipment as mobile gibbets. One issue the US faces is that if death by lethal injection is used, then the materials used need to be cleared by the FDA. This has also lead to problems witj importation of material and equipment, leaving to shortages. The regulatory requirements also adds significantly to the cost. The cost per execution is cited as $3 million per cost, but this reflects the costs of appeals and the various legal processes needed. The cost could be considerably reduced if appeals were eliminated, or adopting the old British system; 1 appeal is allowed, usually within weeks of sentence being passed, and then if unsuccessful, the inmate is dispatched on a date of the prison service's choosing (the prisoner is not given the right to know that date). The attraction of the Iranian approach is that the equipment is fully reusable. In fact, the state can either hire equipment quite easily, or find it has a resale value in the construction trade. In China, reportedly the costs of the execution are fully reimbursed from the inmate's family. Or maybe, just like when every other country does this, its a bit of theatre, and really doesn't achieve much. The long term solution is for the US to start negotiating with countries regarding prisoner exchange programmes, including the US accepting into custody, and honouring overseas punishments, Americans in custody. Not every American is wrongfully imprisoned. Most American inmates are hardened criminals.

You didn't read the whole piece, The OP clearly gave the correct reference in the footnotes.. I suggest you take another look, and withdraw the accusation.

Of which there are many creeds. Muslim Brotherhood islamism, which is the sort Al Qaeda and Hamas picked up, was inspired by, guess what, Nazism. The Quran forms the basis of the law, but like the Bible, that can be interpreted in many ways. Hence Islamic Scholars, So you have two branches of Islam; Sunni and Shia, with the same book, but different views of the law. The Muslim Brotherhood rejects this, and instead, the interpretation of the Quran comes from the street, the "ordinary people", layered with a dose of nationalism, filled in, like the Nazis, with a bunch of historic fantasies (the Nazis had Teutonic Knights and the Volk, Arab Nationalists frequently make up nonsense, but impressive sounding nonsense, about Saladin and imaging sleights. Hence Al Qaeda issued religious edicts based on then thoughts of a college drop out and a wierdo professor. Later on, a convicted drug dealer in Iraq was listened to earnestly by the crowd. I think at one point, Daesh was down to a car mechanic issuing instructions. In early Arab nationalism, it was mostly junior army officers, as coup plotters, who were suddenly experts in the Quran. In Libya, Gaddafi, who promoted himself to Colonel (but never General) came up with his own version, In Gaza, the leaders of Hamas seem to be an rotating list of street thugs, none of whom really have any religious knowledge, but who's authority largely derived from a book in one hand and a gun in the other. Iran is interesting. It is actually a democracy. It holds elections, there are competing political parties, and incumbants do lose elections. There is a President and a Parliament, which on one level function like a western democracy. Indeed the Iranian constitution is modeled on the French constitution which is modeled on the US one. But the Supreme Leader "supervises" the President and Parliament, and he is guided by an appointed by a Guardian Council, made up of Islamic jurists. Like the Supreme Court reviewing every decision made by Parliament, Congress, to check if that decision conforms with the Shia understanding of the Quran. Now, you might end up with a wise and old Supreme Leader who looks dispassionately at these decisions, who will accept or reject decisions, until a better decision is taken, like the function of the House of Lords, except the Commons can abolish the Lords anytime. Or you might have someone with their own agenda "of this Earth". Hezbollah is a political party in Lebanon, that wields constitutional power through the Labanese Parliament, which has been surprising resiliant after all these years (proving how wrong dictators and wannabe dictators are). Hezbollah will never run Lebanon because of then history of that country and its demographic makeup. They boost their support thanks to financial support from Iran that allows them to run a healthcare and social care system on top of whatever the Lebanese government can provide. Notionally, Afghanistan has a similar system of government to Iran, except is Sunni Islam as the basis of law. And its an Emirate. Emir is kind of like King, but more like "Commander in Chief". The Taliban haven't been around long enough to establish hereditary Emirs, so the assumption is when they start popping their clogs due to old age, there will be a tussle for control. But like the Muslim Brotherhood, their power depends on the half arsed understanding of the Quran, but without the political sophistication of European fascism. Over in Iran, the Supreme leader really is an expert in religious law, spending all his life studying it, so is more like a Pope (who actually was a constitutional successor to the Emperor of Rome) and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Syria is the interesting case. The current leader is apparently a temporary leader until they can get the inevitable score settling out of the way. They are still following the secular Syrian constitution. The leader seems to be an ordinary bloke. He is an Islamist, but what that means is hard to discern right now. He's clearly media savvy, knowing when during war, to look like the military commander and all tough, but in peace, getting a haircut, some nice shirts and trousers. He comes over as urbane, and is educated. He seems genuinely focused on his own country, which has suffered a lot, but we will see how long that lasts. We would do well to keep our noses out, and help if asked. I doubt that will happen; too many vested interests in the region. he could probably take some tips from King Abdullah in Jordan, about how to negotiate a tricky path that doesn't involve violent revolt, but also fend off the Turks, the Saudis, the UAE etc. Then we have Syria

Does he want dictatorial powers? Well, he actually said he does. Now, he might say he was joking at the time. But consider his use of Executive Orders; how many of those overturn or over ride existing federal statute? In 2016, in his acceptance speech, he said he alone can address the vital needs of the United States. His recent use of EOs suggests he has moved from that to stating he alone has a mandate to suspend the law in pursuit of his goals. Some of these EOs are now under legal challenge. That he is prepared to issue EIs that conflict with the Constitution, whether or not they are struck down or rescinded, actually does indicate either he is an ignoramus concerning the function of government (which would be worrying, considering all the experience he has gained over the years), or that he does want dictatorial powers. So is he an idiot or a wannebe dictator? https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf In this ruking, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett said: Congress passed a statute that required TikTok to cease operations in the US by January 2025, unless the owners sold the operation to a non-Chinese entity. There was overwhelming support from both parties. Byte Dance appealed and the Supreme Court upheld the law. Then the 47th President, even before he had taken office, urging the Court to stay the effecgive date of the ban. The brief asseted: The Court, rightfully, rejected this request. Congress had lawfully and powerfully passed a federal law. The president cannot overturn that law. But as soon as he was in office https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/application-of-protecting-americans-from-foreign-adversary-controlled-applications-act-to-tiktok/ Trump’s TikTok Order does just simply direct the Attorney General to ignore the statute for a period of time; it does everything it can to declare TikTok’s continued operation entirely lawful during that period, even though the company is now banned by the statute. From 5:21, Senator Tom Cotton, who otherwise does support the President, point out the law is the Law irrespective of the President's wishes. But some mght say TikTik is a trivial matter (even though it actually concerns on one level Freedom of Speech). But whatabout Birthright Citizenship. The existing statutory regime provides for birthright citizenship. This Order is an attempt to overrule that regime, sub silentio. The President thinks its about his reading of the 14th Amendment. But its not, The 14th Amendment only prohibits Congress from denying citizenship to people covered by the Amendment. But Congress has the unquestioned authority to grant citizenship at birth to others who do not fall within the Amendment’s guarantee. Several Congressional statutes guarantee birthright citizenship to children whom the President's Order says are not citizens. The Supreme Court has ruked that the executive branch does not have authority to interpret statutes in contravention of the way they have been interpreted by the courts. And the 14th Amendment has been thoroughly reviewed bynthe courts over many many decades. When the president asserts authority to ignore a federal statute, they must make one of two arguments: they must argue that the statute was beyond Congress’s constitutional authority to enact, or they must argue that the statute interferes with an inherent and exclusive power conferred by the Constitution on the president. Article 1 of the US Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to decide who is a US citizen and who is not So, another demonstration of dictorial inkling. Some call that Presidential Unilateralism. Same thing. But there are many different kinds of dictator. Is he a or wants to be a fascist dictator? That's getting into the nitty gritty of political creed (he's clearly not a communist), and ultimately, he may have no political creed, so you end up with terms like Peronist, Francoist. Do the question should be, does he want to be an authoritarian or totalitarian dictator. Some call the 47th President an authoritarian populist, https://news.berkeley.edu/2025/01/21/theres-a-term-for-trumps-political-style-authoritarian-populism/ Others call him a "new authoritarian" https://theconversation.com/is-donald-trump-a-fascist-no-hes-a-new-brand-of-authoritarian-241586 Not a fascist. But he's old, and likely dead, disabled in the next few years. What legacy will he leave. And if a Presidency has taken so much power, will it give it back. One is reminded of the Devil's Speech. You might say that you support the present President, that he is well intentioned, that he will leave America in a better place, but what of the next? America is not a one party state, and most people recognise that, and support the idea of a political opposition. Part of that means accepting your chosen party doesn't always win the vote. As civilised peoples, there is a smooth transition of power (another hot topic). Its a system that has served Western democracies very well for hundreds of years. We have complex laws that mostly work well. That they are challenging to unpick protects us all from the reactionary and paniced. The Dictatorial instincts arise because this is how private companies are run, and often how they fail. Before 2016, the current President had zero experience government, national or local. Its at local government that you see democracy really working; people of opposing ideologies actually working together, because, whether you are red or blue, left or right, fixing a pothole, collecting the trqash, is much the same. He's not really had the experience of sitting down with a group of people who disagreed with him, and persuading them to his viewpoint. The closest he has gotten is probably when speaking to the banks for a line of credit. If they don't loan him money, he goes somewhere else until someone does lend him the money, When you've talk of major changes in law, especially if eminating from the Oval Office, it seems Town Hall meetings are the venue for a President to discuss his plans in a way that local people and politicians can understand. It happened last time when there was talk of repealing the ACA. Nothing is happening like that now. In Constitutional issues, the British Prime Minister is one of the most powerful roles in the world. The Prime Minister decides what parliament can debate. So effectively Parliament debates the government's policies every day, and the government has the majority. There is no to little scope for the Opposition to introduce Bills that are contrary to the Government's agenda, unlike the US system. This explains the perception that the US just gets on with things, whoever is in power, but the direction of the British government can radically change every 3-5 years, especially if the government has a very large majority.

One of the reasons US built ships are so expensive is because the the Jones Act. The Jones Act requires all ships conducting trade between US ports (eg loading in Los Angeles, unloading in Delaware) to be both US flagged and US owned. Thus there is a lack of competition. https://pacificlegal.org/the-jones-act-a-disastrous-legacy-for-the-u-s-economy-and-security/

Part of the reason is because he has a disgruntled niece who is a psychologist. You might be hacked off if you had a rich uncle who told your brother to let his disabled kid die. The precedent was set by Kenneth Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton, with a public shocked by lurid details of a private nature. Clinton wasn't the first President to have engaged in adulterous affairs ; FDR, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, all had affairs while in office. But the Starr investigation wasn't about a suddenly Puritan congress; utter rubbish, when you look at tneir personal biographies. It was a Partisan move to undermine a Presidency on the global stage. Before, to the outside world, American politics seemed free of extremes. The two parties both held similar positions, and nearly always, in international affairs, the oppostion party stood behind the presidency. Of course, at the domestic level, there was always key differences, but the International community doesn't care about American domestic politics. Since Starr, American politics has since degenerated, certainly in terms of Common Decency. And that's a finger pointed at both sides of the aisle. Of course the same happens in other countries. With Italian politics, we have long come to expect it, since Berlosconi. Brexit made Britain into a kitchen soap drama, and a laughing stock. French politics has seen Presidents actually slung in jail. Clinton's affairsl yes, conduct unbecoming of a gentleman, but essentially private. The language employed against George W Bush was outrageous. Barack Obama; politicians openly questioning if he was really an American. Biden; polticians calling him a paedophile. So the 47th President being called a sex pest/perv into all of that. Another speculative reason about why him? He's an actor. He has, over many years, created a TV persona that is an entire fiction (he was never an entrepreneur, dabbling in all different creative industries. He made his money in bricks and mortar, an industry based largely itself on fictions about how much a property is worth). He was never previously a public servant. The only time the general public knew about the real DJT was through one of his divorces. Ordinarily, affairs in the open ought to sink a politician, because it suggests dishonesty, disloyalty, carnal lust. Hence politicans like to keep a lid on these things. The public already knew about these things, so that's priced in to the vote (he can't be harmed if he was caught shagging the Press Secretary. Melania was looking a bit haggard at the Pope's funeral). In The Apprentice, he creates an impression of someone with a sharp eye for detail, who makes strong decisions (You're Fired), who is very focused and who is warm hearted. The real person hasn't been in the public eye for 30 years, and all the things we would normally know about a politician in a 30 year political career are playing catchup. He makes weak decisions, he flip flops, he doesn't stay focused and often he is mean spirited. Of course, there are comparisons to other actors turned politicians. Ronnie Reagan was probably under estimated, and likely misunderstood (he took a surprisingly liberal stance on some issues). Zelensky is probably under rated. He came into office as a former comedian, actor and director. If you look at his piano routine (playing a piano with his testicles), you would rightfully dismiss him as a political lightweight. But in the Ukrainian election, he had a runoff against essentially the Ukrainian Candy Oligarch. And they do say, cometh the hour, cometh the man. You dig a bit more into his background, and you find he is a trained lawyer (like Putin), so solid intellectual foundations for a Presidency. Sometimes, actors make pretty good impressions, on film, of the sort of politician or speech that you want to see or hear. Charlie Chaplins speech was entirely improvised

To be fair. you can make a magnet from an old nail. But with respect to Niron Magnetics, I would be a bit cautious. The compan y is jointly owned by Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and the University of Minnesota. Its recently enjoyed a tax credit through the Inflation Reduction Act. The company has received funding from Stellantic, GM, Volvo, and more recently Samsung and Allison. But this isn't the first time iron nitride has been used in magnets. GM founded a company, Magnequench, that did all this. It was so impressive, they sold it off in 1995, to a Chinese company, Sextant. The story is all over those Alt-Right sites as evidence of shameful Pentagon betrayal. Governments do have control of IP that is critical to the nation. I've been through that process. I had a patent which the UK government put a hold on for 6 months, while they decided if it contained information that could be harmful to UK interests (it was to do with the nature of a material I had developed a technique to detect). In the end, they decided it wasn't, which was rather deflating at the time. Volvo Cars is Chinese owned. Stallantis is nominally a Ditch company. Samsung is South Korean. Allison Transmission is owned by the Carlyle Group and Onex Corporation. Onex is Canadian. Now, I see there are a ton of articles recently published about Niron,like this one. Typically "written" by Indians. What companies often do, as part of BD, is paid for media articles. They will engage with media partners, perhaps write a few articles, to promote the company, often to grab attention of investors. The company has about $20-30m in the bank. The burn rate will be phenomenal. They are not the only company in town with rare-earth free magnets in development. Here's another fluff article, about a UK company (cue flag waving) with some equally whizzy sounding and prmising tech: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a61147476/ai-developed-magnet-free-of-rare-earth-metals/ https://www.matnex.ai/ And other European designed ones: https://eitrawmaterials.eu/success-stories/passengers-rare-earth-free-magnets-prototypes-set-transform-industries (hmm, key difference; the EU has a pretty massive research investment fund to support basic research. The US is slashing all of that, courtesy of DOGE. Does anyone think China is trimming back on the state's role in funding research). There are lots of efforts, some have failed, maybe none will succeed. Clearly the car industry is the one putting the big bucks into this, but the future pace of spend is inextricably linked to the future of EV. Lately, many governments have suddenly gotten wobbly about EV switch over dates, likely because of lobbying from industry and the unions, as well as ideological shifts. Investors don't really care if these are great ideas or not, just as long as they get a return. If they are not sure they can get a return in 4-5 years, their money goes elsewhere. EV is most likely to be the next phase in cars, because of the infrastructure that's already in place (most homes are connected to the grid, there is a steadily growing network of chargers in carparks, petrol stations), but hydrogen power lurks. Again, Investors don't care about Petrolhead's preferences for one over the other. Its about making money, not whether you have a stick shift or not. If ICE has a few more years left, then there might be some more money to be made in investing in petrol engines for a few more years. Mazda's gamble with Skyactiv might have paid off, because otherwise the company was heading to the same oblivion as Daihatsu and others.

Don't forget Putin. https://www.newsweek.com/putin-decree-triggers-ominous-alaska-calls-territory-empire-soviet-union-1862689 158 years of hurt as far as he's concerned. He has a massive chip on his shoulder about all things historic. Still, that beated by the Afghan market trader, berating a British officer on foot patrol about damage the British Army had done to the market, and demanding compensation. The British officer, worried about a stray bomb maybe hitting the town that he wasn't aware of, asked for more details so he could urgently look into it. Turns out the old fella was talking about the Second Afghan war of 100+ years earlier. Memories ran deep.

I think Eisenhower realised the strategic error he made.

One wonders if he wants the concession to be extended to Chinese built US flagged ships If only US built, US flagged ships, then that's about 30 merchant ships.

I think Americans just don't do black at funerals. Why, I don't know. It really doesn't matter what the 47th president, nor Zelensky for that matter, wears at a Papal funeral, anymore than what is worn in the Oval Office. No one has mentioned the realtively large number of bearded men wearing dresses at a funeral. A beared man in a dress Some bearded men in dresses at a Papal funeral The irony is the late Pope assidiously avoided wearing the Scarlet and Black favoured by the previous Pope. He wore, in papal terms, simple white dresses. He was laid to rest by handpicked homeless people that included refugees.

The link is 1956, when the US backed Egypt, when France and the UK sent in the military to prevent nationalisation of the canal. News spin, 50s style

Well, this is a 100 day poll, which is a standard thing in Septic politics. You probably have access to more data. but maybe you can share data for other presidents from 100 days and past. 45th and 46th President ratings In both cases, the 100 days mark was nearer their high water approval; ie that was as good as it coukd get, The so-called Honeymoon period when people give the Benefit of the Doubt. While events surrounding Tariffs might improve, other events will conspire to wipe out the benefit. For instance, a deal on tariffs with China will not create new jobs the next day. If there are benefits to the working man, they won't feel themfor 5 years. Any deal will undoubtedly result on higher prices in the shops; those Chinese goods won't disappear, a they will be more expensive. American made goods won't instantly replace them, at least, not at an affordable price. Interest rates will weigh in on most home owners and people with cars. Interest rates will impact companies.. Americans also do care how they are viewed in the world, and are aware of the headlines. Ukraine is a clearly divisive issue, just like coming to the aid of Britain was a divisive issue in the past. Americans are very religious, One cannot deny the iconigraphy of the 47th President and Zelensky meeting in St Peter;s Bascillica; literally the House of God. America will be divided mainly between those with utter sympathy and support for Ukraine, many others who cannot understand the causes and a tiny minority who emphatically support Russia (just like there were a tiny number of Americans who were stong supporters of Hitler). I think the simple image might steer some fence sitters into deciding who is on the Side of the Angels, and its not Putin. So the outcome of the war in Ukraine might also become to heavily influence support for the President (note hardly anyone cares anymore about Iran). If Ukraine fails and falls, then there will be a perception thats occurred because America failed them. Look at what happened to Gerald Ford, when America abandoned South Vietnam. Clinton was the last President increase his early ratings And of course, Roosevelt For all the others, they were fighting a losing war. Some, like Reagan, might have won some battles, but ultimately, they left office less popular than when they entered. (I suspect early lower approval rating for Reagan was still based on the premise that he was just some dumb C-movie actor, with low expectations). Halcyon days, when even a President accused of gun running to the enemy could recover from that reasonably well. For laughs, Noxon, an actual crook.

A simple Google Image search should generate the necessary apology from you. Interestingly, while pictures of the man with his right arm outstretched are now common memes, every since he was (allegedly) nicked on the ear, the origins of the image come from 2019. https://www.metrotimes.com/imager//b/r-cover/22617914/3eef/49-01-cover-2.jpg The referenced article: https://www.metrotimes.com/news/is-trump-a-fascist-22617920 Leads me to determine that the image of the then 45th President was penned by Tom Carlson. Beyond that, there is little more information on where you can order this artwork from, but I suspect Tom Carlson is not a member of the forum.

The Secretary of the Navy pays his respects to members of the US Navy who sacrificed their lives on the 7th June, 1941, the day the Roosevelt promisted would live on as a Day of Infamy. Not once, but twice, then someone pointed out the screw up.

Does the 47th President not own a black tie? its always the way. You look for the black tie, can't find it. Years later, find you have 10 of them. Or Americans just don't do black ties?

Winnng a war, Ladas with chicken wire

NAFTA was not negotiated by the present American leader. It was negotiated in 1992. It was replaced by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in 2020, following negotiation lead by the present incumbant. In 2018; https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/ 2025: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114144501101999196

Don't forget the dogs. What happened about that. It was a big deal, that people in Springfield were going around eating cats and dogs. Click the link. It's for a good cause, irrespective of the sentiments of the video/

That's really the only murder in recent times in Las Vegas that I recall. The OP posts some parochial story expecting an international audience to really recall this. His mention of Las Vegas piqued by interest in what happened after 2017, and I was surprised to find that, even after an extensive investigation, no one knows the motive. Of course I was then motivated to look into other notable murders in Las Vegas. I assume the OP is a native of the city given his profound interest in local affairs. The death of Jonathan Lewis in 2023 didn't attract any international headlines, but the manner of his death, at the hands of what was described as a mob, is appalling. He was murdered because another student was set upon over a vape and wireless headphones. Perhaps the OP, as a local, can provide some insight about local perceptions of this case. Is it indicative of a wider issue among the youth of Last Vegas. 10 people killed the boy, but 4 boys are up for trial https://youtu.be/9FKu9wS8H-s?si=lbRVcLJkwleUiQDE The 4 boys got away with it, and 6 others are entirely Scot free, len alone the behaviour of the onlookers.

Why do the Moderators of the forum tolerate this nonsense?