minnow

Wasn't the stated goal to eliminate 2 trillion in spending? So, he's destroyed the government's ability to function and compromised the security of the government's computer systems he's only reached 2.75% of his stated goal? But not actually?

I want off this ride

People say that about the rich in America too. "Don't tax them, they'll leave and take all their money with them!"

But I dunno, maybe we shouldn't let people get so rich we're terrified of them leaving with their money? Just a passing thought...

But also I call bullshit. Doing business in America is, for the foreseeable future, profitable. The rich aren't going to leave because they're making less profit as long as "less profit" is more than "how much profit will I have if I leave"

Of course, now that they've completely captured the US government, the conversation is kind of moot.

Sounds like your friend is making assumptions about the correlation between their mental/emotional state and dopamine levels. It's a superficially reasonable assumption, but given the interplay between hormones and brain chemistry it's seems possible to me that dopamine levels simply have nothing to do with it and the issue is wholly to do with hormones.

I would be interested in reading any studies that support what your friend is saying. But minus evidence I have to think that your friend is l drawing incorrect conclusions about what would cause the phenomenon they're experiencing.

In comparison, Reyes said, Trump needs only to provide Congress with 30 days’ notice and a written explanation to remove an inspector general.

She cites the legal procedure in her comments declining the motion. If that's not an acknowledgement of the illegality of what happened instead, what is?

So putting a stop, even temporarily, to plainly illegal actions by government official(s) is unreasonable if the illegal actions aren't illegal enough? And "illegal enough" doesn't include "taking one of the biggest ever steps to remove one of the largest barriers to corruption"

And that's... Reasonable?

A strike that has a scheduled end date is a strike that's has scheduled its own failure. A ten day strike would achieve nothing except the suffering of it's participants.

Yes, the economy would grind to a halt, yes people would likely die, yes it would financially hurt the powerful people in charge.

But do you really think those powerful people will give a shit? They know after ten days the gravy train will resume, but only for them and not the people who lost their jobs, got arrested, were injured, etc. The rich and powerful can afford to be patient, meanwhile everyone who sacrificed for ten days is going to have to question whether they can survive doing it again.

No, we're way past the point where our society can afford another failed effort to affect change. We need a general strike that doesn't end until the government capitulates to the needs of the people. It's all or nothing, now. ☹️

This whole non-reaction thing has the vibe of the band playing as the Titanic sunk, fucking hell

Yes. Correct. Because it is.

Physical presence in the United States without proper authorization is a civil violation, rather than a criminal offense

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigration-prosecutions

Illegal immigration makes somebody a criminal as much as a parking ticket does; it doesn't.

Not anymore :(

Ordinarily you'd need ground for dismissal, yes. But one of the first things Trump did was follow the plan for Project 2025 which included, amongst other things, reclassifying a fuck ton of government jobs as political jobs, enabling Trump to hire and fire people for political reasons.

They either have a death wish, they're stupid or there's something else

You know what they say. Everything that comes out of their mouths is either a confession or projection!

I want to be clear that I disagree with the EO; it's not well written, has holes, and (most importantly) is ethically abhorrent. Your first paragraph gives many examples, good job.

But accurate understanding is crucial to effective resistance.

"Sex at time of conception" can ONLY be interpreted as chromosomal sex, as there is no other means of determining sex at that time of development.

The EO doesn't concern itself with which gametes a person ACTUALLY produces, only which ones they WOULD produce based on the zygote's (chromosomal) sex.