“…almost certainly in violation of the emoluments clause…”.
It’s journalistic language like this that’s past its use-by date. Along with “dubious” and the like. I know it’s traditionally recognised as responsible journalism but it weakens, waters down, a proposition leaving low information readers discounting at best, dismissing at worst, the fact put forward.
Trump’s crypto scam, along with its mechanism for receiving bribes, is in violation of the emoluments clause.
Thank you. I've railed against the liberals's ridiculous use of "appears to be" or "seems" and the like for ages. It's a show of base cowardice and enables the criminals/fascists.
Detailed articles get written (including some here) spelling out exactly how corrupt and racist and fascist and and and Republicans are only to sum up with "so it appears they may have some fascist tendencies"-like cop outs.
I swear, if someone were charging at them with guns blazing screaming "Die! Die!" they'd say "Gosh, it appears maybe they intend to do me harm. Perhaps.".
What can you buy with crypto other than illegal drugs and firearms? Ben’s discussion of its cyclical nature was interesting, but history teaches us that private currencies always crash. Always. Eventually. Private currency illiquidity was at the heart of all the late-19th-Century panics that seemed to happen every seven years. 🤔😉😊
Hamas is a fanatical terrorist death cult. There is no "work" that can be done with such evildoers other than to smite them hard enough. Which is what Trump threatened to do. And he had the credibility to induce fear into their black hearts.
But, just like Donny Convict himself, you’re giving him credit for things he had nothing to do with. It’s a desperate search for some reason, any reason, to praise him regardless of how little he deserves it.
Not a word of criticism for the Democrats though. 'We lost because the other side were so awful' doesn't say much for the majority who voted for him. If you turn away from the people, in a democracy they will turn away from you.
For all of the people on the far left who are going to give Trump credit for scaring Hamas into pushing for a deal, stop for a moment and consider the message you are actually sending to the Democratic Party. Hamas knows Trump gives zero shits about Palestinian lives. That under him there would be no resistance or moderation of Israel's behavior from the U.S. whatsoever.
Not that Hamas cares much about Palestinian lives, either, for which they have explicitly disavowed responsibility in both words and actions (despite the fact that many among you maintain a delusional denial of Hamas' utter depravity), but they need to at least maintain *some* base of support among Palestinians, which has hovered around fifty percent during the war, to the best of our knowledge.
In which case, what the Democratic Party should presumbly learn from this, is that it was a mistake to even make a pretense of trying to minimize Palestinian casualties. That Biden should have signaled early on that Israel has carte blanche to do as it pleases, and that Palestinians will face unmitigated suffering until Hamas agrees to a cease fire. No pushing to restore power and Internet, no pressure or effort to get more aid through, no delaying shipments of 2000 pound bombs, nothing.
The best case you can make for the incoming Trump administration is that it played its part with the Biden administration in a good-cop, bad-cop routine to break down Hamas. And you've basically decided to get rid of the good cop now, and make it clear that if you'd had your druthers, the bad cop would have been running the show from the beginning.
Is that really what you want to happen the next time Palestinians turn to a terrorist outfit—or are coerced into doing so—so that they can support military opposition to a country which is home to over two million Arabs? Ones who *don't* get thrown off of buildings for being gay or leading political opposition parties? (Or as some American progressives term them, "settler colonialists".) You'd rather have a President who's best buds with an Israeli Prime Minister who's been one of Hamas' chief enablers over the years, and whose right wing support in the Knesset is busying themselves persecuting West Bank Palestinians while the world is distracted by Gaza?
This would not have worked in the middle of the war, while Hezbollah was still striking in the North. The incoming Trump administration may have been brought in to kick an extra point here now that Hamas is in an utterly hopeless position, but this would have happened sooner rather than later, thanks to Israel's aggressive action against northern Islamists who still have actual societies they deem worth protecting, and to whom they are still accountable. And as Ben pointed out, Netanyahu's political support is now eroding with hostages still unaccounted for.
Meanwhile, the U.S. foreign policy class is arguably already learning that perhaps letting Israel do what it's going to do in that area of the world and not getting too nitpicky over details of this or that possible violation of the Geneva convention might just be in our best interests after all. And maybe they're right.
I would assume that as a supporter of Palestinian rights, you would disagree. If you voted for Trump, you've got a funny way of showing it.
Which is to say, by sending the exact opposite message.
>> " But this is what America voted for and we have to accept the will of the people — at least for now." <<
No.
We have to accept that Trump won the election and is President. Other than that we don’t need to accept anything. And effective immediately. We don't have to wait out any "for now" delay.
We don’t need to (and must not) accept that he gets to do whatever he wants. We don’t need to (and must not) accept that any of this is normal. We don’t need to (and must not) accept that we must remain polite and “go high” in response to their blatant attacks on our liberties. We don't need to (and will not) accept that we have to wait "for now" before we can fight.
OK, Trump is President. But everything he tries must be fought unrelentingly IMMEDITELY.
“…almost certainly in violation of the emoluments clause…”.
It’s journalistic language like this that’s past its use-by date. Along with “dubious” and the like. I know it’s traditionally recognised as responsible journalism but it weakens, waters down, a proposition leaving low information readers discounting at best, dismissing at worst, the fact put forward.
Trump’s crypto scam, along with its mechanism for receiving bribes, is in violation of the emoluments clause.
Thank you. I've railed against the liberals's ridiculous use of "appears to be" or "seems" and the like for ages. It's a show of base cowardice and enables the criminals/fascists.
Detailed articles get written (including some here) spelling out exactly how corrupt and racist and fascist and and and Republicans are only to sum up with "so it appears they may have some fascist tendencies"-like cop outs.
I swear, if someone were charging at them with guns blazing screaming "Die! Die!" they'd say "Gosh, it appears maybe they intend to do me harm. Perhaps.".
Just about everything he did in his first term violated the emoluments clause.🤔😉😊
What can you buy with crypto other than illegal drugs and firearms? Ben’s discussion of its cyclical nature was interesting, but history teaches us that private currencies always crash. Always. Eventually. Private currency illiquidity was at the heart of all the late-19th-Century panics that seemed to happen every seven years. 🤔😉😊
Pretty funny to read all about how awful Trump is (yet again!), followed by
> Peace in the Middle East (for now)
You know WHY there is peace in the Middle East, Ben?
Because Trump said this on Jan 7:
> Trump in news conference says 'all hell will break out' if Gaza hostages not released
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/07/nx-s1-5250278/trump-hostages-israel-hamas-middle-east
Bullshit. It's because people actually in office worked for months to bring it about.
Oh, Trump will claim it's all his doing, of course. Because that's all he has. Claiming credit for what other people do.
Hamas is a fanatical terrorist death cult. There is no "work" that can be done with such evildoers other than to smite them hard enough. Which is what Trump threatened to do. And he had the credibility to induce fear into their black hearts.
Hamas is terrorists. We can agree on that.
But, just like Donny Convict himself, you’re giving him credit for things he had nothing to do with. It’s a desperate search for some reason, any reason, to praise him regardless of how little he deserves it.
Rather sad, really.
Not a word of criticism for the Democrats though. 'We lost because the other side were so awful' doesn't say much for the majority who voted for him. If you turn away from the people, in a democracy they will turn away from you.
For all of the people on the far left who are going to give Trump credit for scaring Hamas into pushing for a deal, stop for a moment and consider the message you are actually sending to the Democratic Party. Hamas knows Trump gives zero shits about Palestinian lives. That under him there would be no resistance or moderation of Israel's behavior from the U.S. whatsoever.
Not that Hamas cares much about Palestinian lives, either, for which they have explicitly disavowed responsibility in both words and actions (despite the fact that many among you maintain a delusional denial of Hamas' utter depravity), but they need to at least maintain *some* base of support among Palestinians, which has hovered around fifty percent during the war, to the best of our knowledge.
In which case, what the Democratic Party should presumbly learn from this, is that it was a mistake to even make a pretense of trying to minimize Palestinian casualties. That Biden should have signaled early on that Israel has carte blanche to do as it pleases, and that Palestinians will face unmitigated suffering until Hamas agrees to a cease fire. No pushing to restore power and Internet, no pressure or effort to get more aid through, no delaying shipments of 2000 pound bombs, nothing.
The best case you can make for the incoming Trump administration is that it played its part with the Biden administration in a good-cop, bad-cop routine to break down Hamas. And you've basically decided to get rid of the good cop now, and make it clear that if you'd had your druthers, the bad cop would have been running the show from the beginning.
Is that really what you want to happen the next time Palestinians turn to a terrorist outfit—or are coerced into doing so—so that they can support military opposition to a country which is home to over two million Arabs? Ones who *don't* get thrown off of buildings for being gay or leading political opposition parties? (Or as some American progressives term them, "settler colonialists".) You'd rather have a President who's best buds with an Israeli Prime Minister who's been one of Hamas' chief enablers over the years, and whose right wing support in the Knesset is busying themselves persecuting West Bank Palestinians while the world is distracted by Gaza?
This would not have worked in the middle of the war, while Hezbollah was still striking in the North. The incoming Trump administration may have been brought in to kick an extra point here now that Hamas is in an utterly hopeless position, but this would have happened sooner rather than later, thanks to Israel's aggressive action against northern Islamists who still have actual societies they deem worth protecting, and to whom they are still accountable. And as Ben pointed out, Netanyahu's political support is now eroding with hostages still unaccounted for.
Meanwhile, the U.S. foreign policy class is arguably already learning that perhaps letting Israel do what it's going to do in that area of the world and not getting too nitpicky over details of this or that possible violation of the Geneva convention might just be in our best interests after all. And maybe they're right.
I would assume that as a supporter of Palestinian rights, you would disagree. If you voted for Trump, you've got a funny way of showing it.
Which is to say, by sending the exact opposite message.
Thanks for all you do
>> " But this is what America voted for and we have to accept the will of the people — at least for now." <<
No.
We have to accept that Trump won the election and is President. Other than that we don’t need to accept anything. And effective immediately. We don't have to wait out any "for now" delay.
We don’t need to (and must not) accept that he gets to do whatever he wants. We don’t need to (and must not) accept that any of this is normal. We don’t need to (and must not) accept that we must remain polite and “go high” in response to their blatant attacks on our liberties. We don't need to (and will not) accept that we have to wait "for now" before we can fight.
OK, Trump is President. But everything he tries must be fought unrelentingly IMMEDITELY.
And how exactly do you plan to "fight"?
Organize, participate, donate, directly act, and several other ways.
How far exactly do you plan to lick your way up Donny Convict’s ass?
I expect all but a handful of the orders Trump issues this week will be instantly challenged in court, making for yet more fun and games. 🤔😉😊