All Things Trump: The Return Of The King

[L'Emmerdeur]

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No criminal case is involved which is what the 5th amendment is about. The Secretary of State ordered the suspension of the visa and the removal of the alien.

Selective blindness? It certainly helps to performatively ignore something you fail to quote it.

Ozturk was deprived of her liberty without due process.

nor shall any person be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

You can claim that the 5th Amendment is only applicable in criminal cases. Maybe you can find an authoritative source that supports that claim. Meanwhile:

Due process under the Fifth Amendment enshrines the principle that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without fair procedures. This right encompasses both procedural and substantive due process, upholding the integrity of the judicial system and safeguarding individual freedoms against arbitrary government power.

Procedural due process ensures fair procedures before the government can deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. It requires that individuals have a fair opportunity to present their case and respond to government actions. The courts have defined what constitutes a fair procedure, including:

• The right to be heard
• The right to be represented by an attorney
• The right to a fair and impartial trial
• The right to appeal

Substantive due process protects those rights considered fundamental, even when the governmental action depriving a person of those rights follows procedural fairness. It focuses on the "what" and "why" of government action, ensuring that the government does not enforce laws or engage in actions that are arbitrary or capricious in nature. This aspect of due process protects against laws and government actions that fundamentally violate basic rights of liberty and justice.

Substantive due process has been applied to aspects of personal rights embodied in notions of privacy, bodily autonomy, and familial relationships. However, what precisely constitutes a "fundamental" right within substantive due process can be complex, leading to vigorous legal debates and conflicting judicial decisions reflecting the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation.

Both strands of due process form a robust framework through which individual rights are perpetually affirmed against governmental overreach. By guaranteeing pertinent procedures and preserving fundamental rights, due process under the Fifth Amendment ensures that justice is woven intrinsically into the fabric of American legal doctrine and practice.

[source]

Note that the 5th Amendment enshrines a right to due process to address 'government actions' (depriving the person of liberty) regardless of whether an accusation of crime is made or not. This right is held by all persons in the United States, not just citizens.

[Brian Peacock]

This member of the freak and mutant class has no problem with either sarcasm or irony. Rather than tone-policing my freedom of expression how about you comment on the right-o-sphere's denigration of, and the Trump administration's policy towards, disabled people as highlighted in the article I posted?

I don't see anything about their policy toward disabled people. I do see some language policing, which is usually tolerated only by the left, but meh.

I'm glad only scientists willing to include a diversity statement are awarded funding these days. Shows you who is willing to say whatever they are told, in exchange for money.

Of course a high percentage of science funding authors are in agreement, but the fact that there is no disagreement, is the same as saying there are no real scientists.

The article wasn't about scientists but about things like removing a system that made government announcements and statements accessible to deaf people and changing official guidance that formerly ensured govt services and programs etc were accessible to disabled people. The quotes from the right-o-sphere simply highlight the low opinion of disabled people the administration appears to endorse and embody in action. Taking issue with a lightweight critique of this approach and these kinds of attitudes makes it look like you either think including disabled people in society is a bad idea or that the conditions and impacts of disability (or even the existence of disabled members of the community) should not be recognised by society, or both.

It's clear that you believe DEI measures are unfair for some and/or unduly benefit certain people to the detriment of certain others. What's not clear however is how and why you think something like formally, officially recognising disabled people, their conditions and the impacts those conditions can and do have on their daily lives, might or does unduly benefit certain people and therefore is unfair or detrimental to certain others.

Considering every able-bodied person is only one accident or quirk of fate away from disability or long-term ill health this is an opportunity to have a serious discussion, and if you'd take a moment off trying to score points against imaginary phantoms we might actually be able to have one.

[pErvinalia]

Cunt... Serious discussion?!

[Tero]

I'm still confused about the US executive order. It seemingly addresses the federal workers. That's fine. But he then signs sweeping orders that affect every citizen. I expect him to do this eventually: "Trump signs executive order defining criticism of the president as terrorism."

[Tero]

Visitors and speakers at conferences now sent back as anti-trumpian. Laptops examined. I will be carrying a tablet and will delete even my browser on return.

[Cunt]

This member of the freak and mutant class has no problem with either sarcasm or irony. Rather than tone-policing my freedom of expression how about you comment on the right-o-sphere's denigration of, and the Trump administration's policy towards, disabled people as highlighted in the article I posted?

I don't see anything about their policy toward disabled people. I do see some language policing, which is usually tolerated only by the left, but meh.

I'm glad only scientists willing to include a diversity statement are awarded funding these days. Shows you who is willing to say whatever they are told, in exchange for money.

Of course a high percentage of science funding authors are in agreement, but the fact that there is no disagreement, is the same as saying there are no real scientists.

The article wasn't about scientists but about things like removing a system that made government announcements and statements accessible to deaf people and changing official guidance that formerly ensured govt services and programs etc were accessible to disabled people. The quotes from the right-o-sphere simply highlight the low opinion of disabled people the administration appears to endorse and embody in action. Taking issue with a lightweight critique of this approach and these kinds of attitudes makes it look like you either think including disabled people in society is a bad idea or that the conditions and impacts of disability (or even the existence of disabled members of the community) should not be recognised by society, or both.

It's clear that you believe DEI measures are unfair for some and/or unduly benefit certain people to the detriment of certain others. What's not clear however is how and why you think something like formally, officially recognising disabled people, their conditions and the impacts those conditions can and do have on their daily lives, might or does unduly benefit certain people and therefore is unfair or detrimental to certain others.

Considering every able-bodied person is only one accident or quirk of fate away from disability or long-term ill health this is an opportunity to have a serious discussion, and if you'd take a moment off trying to score points against imaginary phantoms we might actually be able to have one.

DEI measures ARE unfair. That's why they suck ass.

If you narrow the pool you select from, to include more of one group, or less of another, your selection pool is poorer. That's simple math.

Disability supports are a GREAT place to hide fraud, financial malfeasance AND genuine support for people experiencing difficulties due to immutable characteristics.

It isn't all 'good'.

One example I can offer, in a very broad way, is related to current events. If an NGO closes upon losing its government funding, it never WAS 'non-government'.

I've worked with NGO's, and know a bit about both sides of their work.

[Brian Peacock]

...

It's clear that you believe DEI measures are unfair for some and/or unduly benefit certain people to the detriment of certain others. What's not clear however is how and why you think something like formally, officially recognising disabled people, their conditions and the impacts those conditions can and do have on their daily lives, might or does unduly benefit certain people and therefore is unfair or detrimental to certain others.

...

DEI measures ARE unfair. That's why they suck ass...

That just tells me that they're unfair because they're unfair, so help me out here. How is ensuring the doors of government buildings are wide enough for a wheelchair, that there's a ramp where there are steps up to the door and that the front desk isn't three and a half feet high unfair?

If you narrow the pool you select from, to include more of one group, or less of another, your selection pool is poorer. That's simple math.

I see the problem. You believe DEI measures are some kind of exclusion list rather than an inclusion list. As with the example above, if government buildings are accessible to people in wheelchairs then obviously you're broadening "the pool you select from" to include wheelchair users who otherwise wouldn't be able enter or work in that building. Similarly with the example in the article, if you provide ASL support for government announcements and statements then you're making those things accessible to deaf people, which is broadening rather narrowing "the pool you select from". Remember, we're talking about disability and accessibility in particular here.

Disability supports are a GREAT place to hide fraud, financial malfeasance AND genuine support for people experiencing difficulties due to immutable characteristics.

Sure, there are many places for fraudsters to hide their frauds, but what's the relevance of that to a discussion around the Trump administration removing ASL interpreters and withdrawing official guidance around supporting the accessibility needs of people who face particular challenges "due to immutable characteristics"?

[Svartalf]

frump's hostile attitude to Iran blows up in his face, Iran just bombed Diego Garcia and destroyed most of the B2s parked there.

[Tero]

Trump PR person:
REPORTER: You said you saw evidence that this man was a convicted gang member. In what court?

LEAVITT: If you just saw the headline from the insane failing Atlantic magazine this morning, you would think this individual was father of the year

(Reporter is addressing missing human rights)

https://www.threads.net/@aaron.rupar/po ... kJd356J14Q

[Cunt]

...

It's clear that you believe DEI measures are unfair for some and/or unduly benefit certain people to the detriment of certain others. What's not clear however is how and why you think something like formally, officially recognising disabled people, their conditions and the impacts those conditions can and do have on their daily lives, might or does unduly benefit certain people and therefore is unfair or detrimental to certain others.

...

DEI measures ARE unfair. That's why they suck ass...

That just tells me that they're unfair because they're unfair, so help me out here. How is ensuring the doors of government buildings are wide enough for a wheelchair, that there's a ramp where there are steps up to the door and that the front desk isn't three and a half feet high unfair?

If you narrow the pool you select from, to include more of one group, or less of another, your selection pool is poorer. That's simple math.

I see the problem. You believe DEI measures are some kind of exclusion list rather than an inclusion list.

They often are in Canada. Preferential treatment for indigenous persons, as one example.

As with the example above, if government buildings are accessible to people in wheelchairs then obviously you're broadening "the pool you select from" to include wheelchair users who otherwise wouldn't be able enter or work in that building. Similarly with the example in the article, if you provide ASL support for government announcements and statements then you're making those things accessible to deaf people, which is broadening rather narrowing "the pool you select from". Remember, we're talking about disability and accessibility in particular here.

It would seem to. To a chap who likely lives in a very old, very wealthy city. When this kind of nonsense is applied too broadly, you can't rent any office space in some communities. Except for the bits which have smooth ramps. Leading into the building from a deeply rutted dirt road.

Disability supports are a GREAT place to hide fraud, financial malfeasance AND genuine support for people experiencing difficulties due to immutable characteristics.

Sure, there are many places for fraudsters to hide their frauds, but what's the relevance of that to a discussion around the Trump administration removing ASL interpreters and withdrawing official guidance around supporting the accessibility needs of people who face particular challenges "due to immutable characteristics"?

Well, I wouldn't want to trust an 'interpreter', when a text can serve. Especially in a world where many bureaucrats are of a certain, predictable political alignment.

Are you going to try to suggest that all ASL interpreters are unbiased professionals, with no personal beliefs creeping in to their work? Or is it a job heavily favouring Democrat voters/donors/believers? That could be a sneaky kind of fraud.

There are more plain ones, too. I just don't see it as terribly important, when there are much better ways of getting the information.

But if you want me to believe he is getting rid of it, I wouldn't believe an 'article' from some source who likely has as much love for Trump as it's regular readers. So what is it you think he actually did, or is it just an article about what might happen, from vague sources 'close to the administration'?

[JimC]

frump's hostile attitude to Iran blows up in his face, Iran just bombed Diego Garcia and destroyed most of the B2s parked there.

Svarty, you've got a little ahead of yourself.

Iranian generals have postured by publicly demanding an immediate strike against the B2s. I doubt Iran has the capability to do so...

[Svartalf]

april's fool more like

[Tero]

There went public health at the federal level.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/l ... ating-food

[Tero]

Should be massive protests for all the healthcare cuts. Public helath is not "someone else getting something for free." It will benefit all.

Just in the summer of 2023 we had a huge family gathering on my wife's side. One pair of grandparents there cannot see their grandchild anymore, because their daughter was brain washed by MAGA husband. They are protecting the child, who will never go to public school, from the Covid vaccinated grand parents.

[Tero]

The tariffs will not work. The US will not be making running shoes and laptops in 2 or 4 years. Businesses can wait out 4 years.

Trump’s view
Trump and his allies argue that they take a long view. Yes, they say, tariffs lead to chaos in the short term. But they will eventually bring back manufacturing jobs that people in some communities relied on. Yes, they say, consumers and businesses will pay higher prices. But those higher prices are worth the long-term benefits of self-sufficiency and more jobs. Yes, they say, the federal government will have to subsidize businesses that are vulnerable to a trade war (including farms). But tariffs will bring in more revenue than the subsidies cost.

And the tariffs may not last long, anyway, if other countries repeal their own trade barriers against America, after which the United States can unwind its reciprocal levies.

Most economists disagree with Trump’s claims. To the extent that he’s right, his goals will require something he has not demonstrated so far: commitment. Businesses will invest in domestic manufacturing only if they think they have no other option because the tariffs will stick. Other nations will withdraw their tariffs only if they think doing so is necessary to regain American customers.

NYT