Taro T

Decrying redefining words, decrying censorship, decrying vilifying those that you politically disagree with. Interesting. Didn't hear him say 1 single word against any of it the past 4 years. Absolutely, these are things that people should be wary of. But, he's perfectly fine with it when it's his side doing it. And am old enough to remember when journalists weren't supposed to take sides; they were merely supposed to side with the truth and then let the chips fall where they may.

Well, guess he showed you. He gave it the laugh emoji instead of the x. 🙄

You don't stand for those things, nor do you know any progressives that stand for those things, but you continually vote for people that DO support those things. You honestly don't see how you defacto support them? Your party didn't reach white men, non-elderly white women, Latinos in the country legally, and young people and also lost ground among blacks and other groups. Continue, as your party seems determined to do, to view the D's problem in the last 3 elections as only being a "we don't reach white men" problem and you will end up with either President Vance or President Rubio in 4 years. Funny how you're fine with politicians lying to the populace. Because the continued lying by your favorite party's politicians and the cover run for them by the established media is a BIG part of why your favorite party has problems with all those groups listed above. How do college educated voters react to attacks on NPR/PBS? Depends upon whether they're of a libertarian bent or more satisified with authoritarianism. Those with a libertarian bent don't necessarily see a reason for the government to be providing TV and radio and the beaurocracy's take on daily events when there are literally hundreds if not thousands of sources available to everyone. (The media landscape has changed quite a bit since 1970.) Of course, the authoritarians would like for the "dangerous" and "fake news" sources to be silenced so only approved "good" sources will be heard. You know, like cancelling the voices of anyone who dared to say 46 was turning into a kumquat before our eyes as opposed to those heroic noble voices telling you not to believe your lying eyes and ears but to rather trust them as they saw him nearly daily and knew he was sharp as a tack.

Somebody's political challengers have just come up with the knock out punch of campaign ads. Really, how did you decide it was a good idea to say on camera that you represent this guy? Pretty sure all your challengers will say they represent the citizens that no longer have to worry about getting harmed by him. Citizens such as his wife and kids for starters.

NYS was STILL forcing university students to get double boostered to enroll/attend classes in the summer of 2022. Queen Hochul rescinded that order about a week after classes started. THAT BS didn't save a SINGLE life but instead may have taken several. What was done to kids in the name of "science" is absolutely reprehensible.

Gee, the network that brought us Dateline and exploding gas tanks (well, of course they explode when you rig them with explosives and put those in front of your cameras) is still at it? Shocked. Absolutely shocked. (Well, maybe not exactly shocked.)

You have to understand, the GOP didn't want him any more than the D's did. But their rank and file DID want him. And after 4 years of hearing every day how he was going to destroy the country and cause WWIII during his 1st term, with neither actually occurring and after 4 years of watching the world burn during 46's term with inflation and illegal immigration running wild and his VP saying literally "nope, wouldn't change a single policy" independents held their noses and voted for him too. The GOP would MUCH rather have had a Romney or Jeb Bush as the president, but they didn't get their way either. And yes, his over the top NYC trash talking is beyond cringe way too often. And totally don't get his tariff centric economic policy. But his foreign policy is leaps and bounds better than what the D's have been putting forth for the past decade or so. And that fact that he believes we should actually have borders is also leaps and bounds better than anything the D's have put forth in at least the last decade.

Oh, in that case, their oppressors should simply carry on. 😒

Why not both. It IS on brand.

So, you're saying if the D's ran an R they might've won. Interesting theory.

THE person with the singularly BEST medical team in the entire world available to him 24-7 and somehow they missed his having prostate cancer for a few years. Yeah, not buyin' it. Wish him well in his battle, but we are not getting anywhere close to the whole story on this.

How can you say "NOBODY (emphasis mine) believes anything they say" when every single day you are responding to at least a handful of people here that profess they believe what D's say?

Good luck w/ it.

You forgot Patterson. (Who, by NYS Governor standards, actually did a good job as Governor.)

Pretty sure 47 found out the resistance to his rightful and glorious annexation of the 51st state was being formulated ENTIRELY at Harvard U and that is the REAL reason he's coming after them so hard. 😒

So, in other words, no, you won't give what you claim is the definition of "facilitate" under "the art of immigration law." And, btw, 47 asking for him to be released into US custody, is effectively pretty d*mn near the same thing as saying we'll have a plane ready to take him back. Which was already suggested as the definition of (or more precisely an example of) "facilitate" upthread.

Read his article. In a couple of places he states that the US must "facilitate his return." At no point in the article was it readily apparent HOW "faciiltate" is being defined. So, why don't you be a mensch and give us the definition from "the art of immigration law."

So, why don't you tell us what this "term of art in immigration law" means?

Well, according to dictionary.findlaw.com it means "to make easier" or "to help bring about." (Which is essesntially what had been said in the previous post.) So, what part of "making easier" his coming back to the US is synonymous with "actually bringing him back to the US?" Isn't that kind of what the term "effectuate" means in this instance, and kind of the cause of this whole kerfuffle as the SCOTUS has asked the district judge what was meant by THAT term?

And further to this, what exactly does the term "facilitate" mean? In most of the non-potato head speaking parts of the world, to facilitate usually means to enable something to happen but not to necessarily actually make it happen. (And thus, the reason the judge wanted the US to facilitate AND effectuate his release back into the US.) As this guy is an El Salvadoran citizen in El Salvador; facilitation could be as simple as telling their President that we can have a plane waiting to take him back to the US but it still is up to the El Salvadorans as to whether they release him for travel back to the US or not.

And from that, should he get his immigration hearing, via Zoom or Teams or whatever, even while still being in El Salvador; it SEEMS that would be a remedy per the SCOTUS ruling. Not certain of that because the SCOTUS said the District Court Judge needs to explain what was meant by "effectuate." The SCOTUS has said THAT might be the District Court taking the judicial branch into the executive branch's territory. Also, not sure whether the US can even "facilitiate" his removal from the El Salvadoran prision as he is an El Salvadoran citizen in the country where he is a citizen. Margot Cleveland has a very informative series of posts on this issue. It is very possible that we've stumbled upon an area of law that is far from black and white and even if he was sent to El Salvador improperly that there may not be a lawful remedy to get him out of there (or out of that prison should he be there actually by mistake as several have claimed). If he really shouldn't be there AND if there isn't a legal remedy to fix that; the law needs to be fixed.

Sure they don't. Suppose they ALL sold them in the "Great Tesla Used Car Sale Event" of Thanksgiving 2024. 😒

Did you see the other fancy word in that original sentence? The court judge needs to define what was meant by that other fancy word and the SCOTUS said that judge may have overstepped the court's authority on that count. The SCOTUS ruling also states clearly that "the order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." It remains to be seen what the District Court Judge meant by the other fancy word to determine whether he needs to be sent back to the US. Considering he's an El Salvadoran citizen now in El Salvador, it is not entirely clear that the US can make the action suggested by that other fancy word actually happen. And, btw, have taken no position on this issue other than to state that what the SCOTUS said is not what you believe it said. There will likely be a further time set for arguments before the SCOTUS after the District Court Judge follows the SCOTUS instructions.

Did you actually read the decision? It's only 4 pages long, so it shouldn't take you more than 4 or 5 hours to do so. If you did read it; did you understand it? Because the ruling doesn't say what you claim it says.

There's been a ~$2 TRILLION / year budget deficit for several years now. If the money "saved" from DoGE goes anywhere except towards reducing that, it ISN'T actually saved. Its being spent on something other than what it was originally going to get spent on. Realize that for political reasons they'll spend it in some manner to show that they're "saving" it. But if it goes ANYWHERE other than reducing the budget deficit it isn't actually getting saved. Expecting they'll show it as a reduction in taxes in some way; which, if the deficit doesn't increase will have been an actual saving as total federal expenditures (which is what taxes truly are; its just some of them are paid by us and some of them are paid by our grandchildren's children) will have necessarily decreased. But if total federal spending isn't decreased, then DoGE will have actually saved nothing. They'll have simply spent it on different things. Now, its possible that what they spend it on instead of what they were going to spend it on ends up making sense; though personally wouldn't have money on it. But that all needs to be in the next budget (or series of continuing resolutions as Congress hasn't done its job since 2007) and SHOULD be shown as lowered expenditures in the current fiscal year and nothing else in the current fiscal year.