Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 hours ago, Dr. Teeth said:

They don’t want international students taking white kids spots. That’s the end game. 

 

49 minutes ago, Lurch said:


You give them WAY too much credit. They don’t want foreigners here. Period.

Next time you see an article about the decline in international tourists, just take a glance at the comments. Those that aren’t directly impacted are celebrating it. They don’t want foreigners here.

 

9 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

That’s not about giving Trump and his people too much credit. Conservatives and rich, white alumni have gone after Ivy League admissions for the last decade. They have funded a lot of lawsuits that have helped reshape admission processes after being unable to dissuade the schools on their own. The ultimate goal in regards to this topic is less international students. Hating bad brown people and other foreigners would still not convince Ivy League schools to go away from a successful model they have right now. 

I see it like they don't want brown people to come here to vote.  They don't mind educating them as long as they don't try for citizenship.   They don't necessarily want white people getting educated to the point where they start critically thinking.    They want the people who can vote be part of their hive mind cult, easier to maintain.  Educated brown people can do all the high tech stuff, and they don't have to pay them much when they can threaten them with deportation.  The best of both worlds for the corporations that mean to rule the world.  

Posted
So, this was kind of interesting.  Reportage on the most recent hearing in the Perkins Coie case.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-reporter-s-notes-of-the-april-23-perkins-coie-hearing
Recall that the government was enjoined from enforcing the EO against Perkins.  Usually the next step would be to formalize that TRO into a preliminary injunction pending trial.  
In this case, Perkins moved for summary judgment and the government moved to dismiss the complaint.  I haven't read the document, but it appears the motion to dismiss was based entirely on some notion that the court was without power to adjudicate this executive action.
The government's attorney was one Richard Lawson, a former Florida DAG (dya like dags?) and Bondi cuck, now a US DAG.  It's a name I think you'll be hearing a lot of in court cases.
He didn't seem to be much of an asshole (compared to Drew Ensign), but was curiously uninformed about the administration's motivations and actual execution of the EO against Perkins.  The problem for him is that is exactly the kind of evidence one needs to avoid summary judgment.
So, that Judge Howell was going to rule against the government seemed a foregone conclusion.  A central question to Howell seemed to be that if she ruled that the EO was invalid, was an injunction even necessary against its enforcement.  
So, a couple of the key takes:  the government didn't try very hard to defend the indefensible.  It seems that a lot of their defense is a very Trumpian, "I have the power to do this and you can't stop me" without much analysis or citation of precedent.  In other words, some pretty low-quality advocacy.  The other thing Lawson tried to argue is that "this isn't as bad as it looks," that is, interpretations of starkly worded portions of the order represent a more "traditional" exercise of executive power.  Stuff like "security clearances are always subject to review and revocation," so the security clearance part is just business as usual.  And the exclusion from government buildings and services really means exclusion from SCIFs, not courthouses and government transaction websites like EDGAR, or uspto.gov.
But without evidence of any of that, the order pretty much speaks for itself and its intemperate tone dooms it to invalidity.
One fun note, Howell dinged Lawson repeatedly on how the settlements with other firms basically address none of the alleged national security concerns of the order, instead settling just for free legal services for Trump causes.
So, like a lot of shit Trump, the bully quietly backs down once his bullshit is called.
Also, I saw a paywalled article that a lot of corporate IP departments are expressing dismay at the capitulating firms, ie not gonna hire em anymore.

“You won’t even stand up for yourself, why would I trust you to stand up for me?”
That’s an easy client call.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


“You won’t even stand up for yourself, why would I trust you to stand up for me?”
That’s an easy client call.

It is.  But so many seem so cowed by the administration.

The good news is that even though the P2025 crowd is in full effect in their malevolent agenda, the competence in execution may actually be worse than Trump I.

Posted
It is.  But so many seem so cowed by the administration.
The good news is that even though the P2025 crowd is in full effect in their malevolent agenda, the competence in execution may actually be worse than Trump I.

On a parallel note, I’m going to be sending both a contribution to Harvard’s endowment and a personal note to the Board of Regents. I’d suggest that this moment in history may be WHY Harvard was/should have been created in the first place. It predates the Republic. It helped form it. Now, it has to stand and fight for it. If they HADN’T stepped up for this fight, then they would have surrendered whatever institutional credibility they had.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

A fucking 2 year old citizen got deported along with mom, without due process, despite dad trying to stop it. 

Eight years from now when the case has worked its way through the system multiple times, the dad will look back on all this and laugh.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

I'm sure most businesses I frequent here are MAGA (no way to avoid it in Montgomery County), but at least none of them show up on that site.

Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

because he's the antichrist?

Same reason he kept his hand off the bible while being sworn in as president. Guess he didn't want it to catch on fire. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

So we're not doing three branches of government anymore? President can just rewrite existing laws now?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
I'm sure most businesses I frequent here are MAGA (no way to avoid it in Montgomery County), but at least none of them show up on that site.

529a346f74912019103a4d32044c66ec.png

cabf98a5e2e33805bf39066f34e762d0.png
938e092ac9db5bef9212acff45e228a3.png
Couldn’t find anything locally to buy but they have some great stuff online.
  • Haha 3
Posted

"We know who the criminals are, trust us." Yep, that sentiment has always yielded nothing but positive results and thriving societies throughout world history.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

"We know who the criminals are, trust us." Yep, that sentiment has always yielded nothing but positive results and thriving societies throughout world history.

It's easy to discern who the criminals are. They're the brown ones. Just trust us ok and stop being dicks about it. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted

Arrest: Yes

Citizen: No

Deportation or Prison: Yes

Name of Accused/Guilty Published: No.  Thus I conclude he wasn't Ramon Gonzalez de la Esquela but rather Boris Badinov Stealinsky.

image.png.ba865f1bf5d44c6dd77c45e6d2e49c01.png

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1


×
×
  • Create New...