GroveHillWanderer

This ruling doesn't actually change things in this particular regard. The Equalities Act 2010 already allowed sports bodies to exclude trans people from sports competitions. Here is the wording from the 2010 act. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10137/

Are you sure China desperately needs to sell these products to the US? In 2023, China's export value of rare earth compounds, worldwide, was $763 million. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1230682/china-export-value-of-rare-earths/ In the same year, China's total exports were valued at $3.42 trillion. https://oec.world/en/profile/country/chn So rare earth exports represent approximately 0.02% of China's total exports. I can't find any statistics of what percentage of China's rare earth exports go to the US but even if it was 100% (which it obviously isn't) that means China could forgo the entirety of its rare earth exports to the US and still not feel the pinch .

What I would call that is abiding by the terms of the 15th amendment to the US Constitution. You know, rule of law and everything. And it's silly word games to ask what "voting against the interests of the original population" is? You're the one who came out with such an opaque phrase - you should know what you meant by it.

Not sure what you mean by "voting against the interests of the original population." (The interests of native American Indians, perhaps)? Anyway, in elections, people vote for a candidate from one or other of the two main parties (or for an independent). A vote for which one of the following: Democrat, Republican or Independent, is a vote against the interests of the "original population", in your opinion?

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that it does apply to them. As stated in the pleadings currently before the court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A886/354797/20250404145223563_2025 0404 Birthright SCOTUS SPA Opp File.pdf New Jersey v. Trump - in the Supreme Court of the United States

That has nothing to do with what I said. I did not express any opinion about the state of the country, nor any belief that "anybody and everybody can be deported." You said they would not want to deport US citizens. I provided evidence that Donald Trump has stated he would love to deport US citizens to El Salvador, and would be honored to do so. Which kind of makes it sound like he at least, does want to.

Yes it is, so try reading the articles again, carefully. Neither of them states that "many people" want the US troops to remain. The first article makes it very clear that the "shock" they want to avert is a withdrawal without proper coordination - not the withdrawal itself. It clearly states that European officials have accepted that a withdrawal is almost certain, they just want it to be coordinated properly. And the second article is not in any way about Europeans wanting US troops to stay, instead it talks about how the US can't be trusted and Europe needs to get serious about protecting itself.

Trump's words (quoted verbatim in the article) did not say anything about the US citizens that he would love to deport to El Salvador being gang members.

Are you sure they don't want to? Trump has stated that he'd "love that", would be "honored" and "all for it" (sending some US citizens to El Salvador). Donald Trump Says He'd Be 'Honored' to Deport Americans to El Salvador Prison: 'I'm All for It' https://people.com/donald-trump-honored-deport-americans-el-salvador-prison-11710177

Did you even read the articles you linked to? Neither of them says that many people from Europe feel the US should continue to defend them. The first article says the Europeans, "have accepted that President Donald Trump’s administration will almost certainly withdraw some of the roughly 80,000 US troops deployed in Europe," but would like any such withdrawal to be coordinated properly. The second article talks about the fact that Europe can no longer trust the US to protect it (that's literally the title of the article) and points out among other things that, "the Trump administration seems intent on giving the Europeans plenty of reasons to get brutally serious about taking responsibility for their own defence." So where is the evidence of the "many people" of whom you speak? (Hint: it's not in either of those articles).

That's right - it isn't used in literature or poetry any more these days but still exists in Scottish/Irish folk songs, some of which go back centuries. I think it's partly because of the popularity of the phrase in Gaelic. I'm not sure if you've ever watched the Outlander TV series but the primary male protagonist (who speaks Scottish Gaelic) often refers to the main female character as, "mo nighean donn" - my brown-haired lass (or maid).

So maybe they're wasn't quite as much "waste and fraud" as Musk and his DOGE minions would have had us believe. Elon Musk drastically drops DOGE’s savings goal from $2 trillion to $150 billion for the year https://fortune.com/2025/04/11/elon-musk-drastically-drops-doge-savings-goal-2-trillion-150-billion-year/

"Nut brown maid" seems to have been a popular phrase in medieval times throughout the British Isles in songs, poems and folk literature. For instance, you have the ballad "The Nut-Brown Maid" that made its first printed appearance in The Customs of London, published in 1502. Then there is what is said to be the most popular traditional Scottish Gaelic folk song of all time, "Horo mo nighean donn boyche." "Mo nighean donn boyche" translates as "my nut brown maid." Ireland is probably no exception to this trend. Incidentally, "nut brown" refers to the hair colour of the women in question, rather than their complexion.

You missed one important point there. As a judge has now pointed out in court, the confidential informant's information was not credible. So there's no real evidentiary basis for believing Abrego Garcia was a member of a gang. Supreme Court orders Maryland dad Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to US from El Salvador prison https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/supreme-court-trump-maryland-father-el-salvador-prison-b2730368.html

Trump isn't even trying to hide this. He's even bragging about how much money his friends made from his actions. Trump brags in Oval Office that his billionaire pals made a killing in stocks after he pulled the plug on tariffs https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-billionaire-profits-dropped-tariffs-b2731386.html

I clearly stated that the Megawatt chargers are not widely available yet. And this is the ICE vs EV thread, so it's about general trends, not only what's available in Thailand. There's another thread for that and I deliberately didn't post in that thread because this info isn't really relevant to Thailand (yet). But in any event, it's a chicken and egg situation. When there were not enough vehicles around that could take advantage of them, obviously no-one would go to the bother of installing them. Now that those vehicles are starting to appear, Megawatt chargers will gradually follow. In addition, as the previous article alludes to and this other article makes clear, you can also 'double up' to get better speeds with existing fast chargers. BYD's Five-Minute Fast-Charging EV Is Even Cheaper Than We Thought

Fully 75% of those deported had not been convicted of a crime, but even if they had, they still must be afforded due process again, in terms of their deportation, as the recent US Supreme Court ruling clearly states. Here's part of that ruling. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf

Not without due process though, according to the US Supreme Court ruling recently handed down - so therefore not in the way the Trump administration did it. This ruling states (inter alia): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf

Based on the recent US Supreme Court ruling, it should have been impossible to deport nearly 300 detainees to El Salvador without affording them due process first but the Trump administration just blithely went ahead and did it anyway. What used to be or what should be impossible is no longer a reliable guide these days.

Chinese officials are openly trolling Trump now.

For those who still worry about the time it takes to recharge at a service station while travelling or have range anxiety, battery technologies are improving day by day. For instance, BYD has just launched 2 models that can add around 400km worth of charge in only 5 minutes and have a fully charged range of 700km. They do require Megawatt charging, which is not widely available yet, to achieve that charging speed, but still. https://electrek.co/2025/04/09/byd-launches-first-evs-with-ultra-fast-charging-starting-at-30000/ Just for comparison, if I put 400km worth of petrol in my car in some service stations with slowish pumps (like one Bangchak station near my home which I often use) it can take me up to five minutes - especially if there's someone in front of me in the queue and/or they're slow taking the money. And a full tank in my car only gives me 500 - 600km of range depending on what mix of urban and motorway driving I'm doing.

So yes, I got that wrong. Manslaughter can of course include accidental killing but also unplanned or as you put it, unintentional killing. I was responding to someone who seemed to think that manslaughter could only mean accidental killing. What I should have said is that manslaughter isn't only accidental killing, it can also be unintentional/unplanned killing (or as you say, intentional killing with mitigating circumstances).

Again though, this may not quite be the victory that Stephen Miller and others might have you believe. Under this ruling the government now has afford people due process. So if they want to continue to deport people using the AEA, they'll have to bring them before a judge and prove that they actually deserve to be deported, which will put a serious damper on their desire to quickly and easily ship them out of the country. Illegal aliens who are guilty of crimes or are actually gang members who pose a danger to society should of course be removed but innocent people should not. Which is surely how any fair-minded person would want it to be.

I think it's a little too early to start crowing about an outright Trump administration victory on this. While it does put a halt to Boasberg's order, the Supreme Court ruling does not however, allow the government to continue deporting detainees the way they did in this case. The ruling states, in part: https://x.com/justinamash/status/1909468970119577691 So basically, the court is saying that in future, the administration must follow due process before they can deport any of these alleged gang members. That will put a serious damper on the pace and volume of the deportations and should ensure that only those people who deserve to be deported, are actually subject to removal.