The fact that the Secretary General of NATO feels the need to kiss Trump's ass publicly is cringe-making. It has echoes of the kind of sycophantic stuff that happens under dictatorships.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
Is it, though? I'd be interested to know what US Shipmates think about this entirely hypothetical question. *Alternative history* is a fascinating rabbit-hole down which to fall...
Having been VP should make him a better candidate, and being the incumbent should also make him a better candidate. ("Should," not necessarily "will.") Maybe Trump anoints JD as his successor; maybe he doesn't. Maybe incumbency turns out to be a bad thing, given how much voters don't like government in general.
Leaving aside the possible advantages of incumbency, one of the ironies of the political process as it exists in the United States today is that the skill set required to be a successful president or vice president is almost completely unrelated to the skill set required to successfully run for president or vice president. In other words, Vance's tenure as vice president will have almost no bearing on his fitness as a presidential candidate in 2028.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
Is it, though? I'd be interested to know what US Shipmates think about this entirely hypothetical question. *Alternative history* is a fascinating rabbit-hole down which to fall...
My expectation is that hypothetical president Harris would probably have continued the Biden administration's policy of continuing to give Israel whatever material support it wants but would not have used American forces to bomb Iran directly.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
What do you base that opinion on?
The political continuity of centrist Democrats liking to bomb stuff, mostly. But there's also the fact that you don't get Dick Cheney onside by being a peacenik.
O what a miserable waste of time and space this loathsome Orange Oaf is.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
What do you base that opinion on?
The political continuity of centrist Democrats liking to bomb stuff, mostly. But there's also the fact that you don't get Dick Cheney onside by being a peacenik.
And we should not forget that shortly before trump was elected the first time, Hillary Clinton advocated the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
In an apparent win for Trump, SCOTUS has ruled 6-3 that he can proceed to draw up guidelines on how he wants to change the interpretation of birthright citizenship. As I am understanding the reports the decision is saying no one judge can block the executive order nationwide, that it needs to be challenged through the appeals system.
In other words, the case continues.
I am sure the lawyers hear will give their readings shortly.
INAL, but how could an appeal court hear a case without it having first been heard in a lower court? Appellant courts seldom have original jurisdiction, unless this is some sort of special case.
Does this, in fact mean, no judge can issue a temporary restraining order until the court comes to a decision, then this decision is appealable?
INAL, but how could an appeal court hear a case without it having first been heard in a lower court?
They can’t.
Short version: SCOTUS seems to be saying that federal district court (trial court) judges, at least in cases like this one, can’t issue universal injunctions, applying everywhere in the country, but rather can only issue injunctions that relate to the parties to the case before them. A district court judge’s decisions may be considered persuasive by other district court judges, but they are not binding on any other judges.
When a federal circuit (appeals) court considers a case, its ruling is binding on all district court judges within that circuit, unless or until SCOTUS rules otherwise.
As I understand it, several appeals courts have upheld previous stays issued by district courts under them to the effect that any executive action on the part of Trump regards birthright citizenship would be held up in 22 states already. Note, just because an appeals court has upheld previous stays, it does not mean they have made any final decision yet. Just that any execution of the executive action cannot happen until after the appeals court makes it decision on the merits of the case before it. And we know any decision issued by an appeals court will be appealed to SCOTUS.
@Nick Tamen I believe there is still a way to make a ruling that has nationwide implications, namely making the case a class action suit. How does that work?
I also understand the court decision not only applies to the birthright law, but also a number of other executive orders including cutting off funds to sanctuary cities, stopping the federal funding of transgender surgery and the like.
Just that any execution of the executive action cannot happen until after the appeals court makes it decision on the merits of the case before it. And we know any decision issued by an appeals court will be appealed to SCOTUS.
The Fat Lady has yet to sing, in other words.
Will it? One of the things Sotomayor pointed out during oral arguments is that the executive branch has lost every case brought on this matter and has appealed none of them to the Supreme Court. Under the executive's logic, which has now been officially adopted by the Supreme Court, lower courts can only enjoin government actions that directly affect the specific parties of the case no matter how blatantly unconstitutional those actions are. So in this specific case the parties are 22 states, the District of Columbia, some immigrant organizations, and several individual plaintiffs. The birthright citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment still applies to those parties like it always did. In the 28 states that did not joint this suit, Trump's executive order overrides the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment. (The justices in the majority of this case would not put it in those terms, but Sotomayor and Jackson have helpfully done so in their dissents.) This creates a patchwork of different citizenship laws for different people and jurisdictions. A baby born in New York will be an American citizen, while one born in Kentucky might not be. This was, of course, exactly the kind of situation the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted to avoid.
In other news, I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention.
On Wednesday, as he was about to depart from a NATO summit, President Donald Trump seemed to make a stunning admission: He gave Iran the green light to attack a U.S. military base in retaliation for his own strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites.
The Iranians "were very nice. They gave us warning," Trump told reporters. "They said, 'We're going to shoot 'em. Is one o'clock OK?' I said, 'It's fine,'" he added.
I'm pretty sure the Constitution has some words in it about colluding with a hostile government to make war upon the United States, but as demonstrated by Trump v. CASA the actual words of the Constitution seem not to matter any more.
18 U.S.C. § 2381: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or imprisoned and fined, and incapable of holding any U.S. office.”
Just that any execution of the executive action cannot happen until after the appeals court makes it decision on the merits of the case before it. And we know any decision issued by an appeals court will be appealed to SCOTUS.
The Fat Lady has yet to sing, in other words.
Will it? One of the things Sotomayor pointed out during oral arguments is that the executive branch has lost every case brought on this matter and has appealed none of them to the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the word “appealed” can be misleading here. There are very few kinds of cases in which there is an actual right of appeal from a circuit (appellate) court to the Supreme Court. And even in those cases, the Court can, and quite often does, say “no, actually there’s no right of appeal here.”
When people talk about “appealing” things to SCOTUS, what they’re normally really talking about is petitioning SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari to review the lower court decision. Whether to grant such a writ is completely within the discretion of the Court. Only a very small percentage of petitions are granted each term.
Granted, these cases involving executive power are probably more likely to get a writ granted than the typical case. But there are no guarantees.
@Nick Tamen I believe there is still a way to make a ruling that has nationwide implications, namely making the case a class action suit. How does that work?
Yes, the Court did leave open the possibility of injunctions and stays in class action having wider applicability.
I’m afraid I’m headed out the door soon to a funeral that will have me otherwise occupied most of the day, so a longer answer will have to wait.
Short answer: Class actions are complicated and have many more hoops for plaintiffs to jump through. They can take time. In cases like those where the plaintiffs are states, class actions aren’t really an option. “Just make the cases class actions” isn’t necessarily a realistic work-around.
18 U.S.C. § 2381: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or imprisoned and fined, and incapable of holding any U.S. office.”
Regards the attack on the base in Qatar: I had thought it did not meet the smell test when it first came out we had an advance warning of the incoming missiles. Then, there was the time during the first term of Drumpf when he struck a Syrian Air Base for its involvement with the dropping of gas bombs on the rebel civilians. He gave the Russians, who also occupied the base, an advanced warning of that attack which would have given the Syrians enough warning of what was about to happen. They moved their planes and other equipment out of the way. All we got was a few damaged bunkers and some holes in the base tarmac.
But, of course, this will probably never raise to the level of impeachment, though by its very nature should meet the definition of a high crime and misdemeanor.
The comment about citizenship being recognized in New York but not Kentucky has its own problems in regards to how SCOTUS has tied itself in knots this session.
Speaking of which, there was the issue of the court giving parents to opt out of their students reading objectionable books. Could that mean a Muslim parent objecting to the display of the Ten Commandments in a public school or the use of a Bible in the school?
Just that any execution of the executive action cannot happen until after the appeals court makes it decision on the merits of the case before it. And we know any decision issued by an appeals court will be appealed to SCOTUS.
The Fat Lady has yet to sing, in other words.
Will it? One of the things Sotomayor pointed out during oral arguments is that the executive branch has lost every case brought on this matter and has appealed none of them to the Supreme Court. Under the executive's logic, which has now been officially adopted by the Supreme Court, lower courts can only enjoin government actions that directly affect the specific parties of the case no matter how blatantly unconstitutional those actions are. So in this specific case the parties are 22 states, the District of Columbia, some immigrant organizations, and several individual plaintiffs. The birthright citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment still applies to those parties like it always did. In the 28 states that did not joint this suit, Trump's executive order overrides the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment. (The justices in the majority of this case would not put it in those terms, but Sotomayor and Jackson have helpfully done so in their dissents.) This creates a patchwork of different citizenship laws for different people and jurisdictions. A baby born in New York will be an American citizen, while one born in Kentucky might not be. This was, of course, exactly the kind of situation the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted to avoid.
In other news, I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention.
On Wednesday, as he was about to depart from a NATO summit, President Donald Trump seemed to make a stunning admission: He gave Iran the green light to attack a U.S. military base in retaliation for his own strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites.
The Iranians "were very nice. They gave us warning," Trump told reporters. "They said, 'We're going to shoot 'em. Is one o'clock OK?' I said, 'It's fine,'" he added.
I'm pretty sure the Constitution has some words in it about colluding with a hostile government to make war upon the United States, but as demonstrated by Trump v. CASA the actual words of the Constitution seem not to matter any more.
I think the only thing here, in the annals of warfare, is you don’t tend to talk about it. Quietly negotiating some way of saving honour/face between belligerents is as old as the hills.
The only thing that would look sillier than him talking about it would be anyone going after him for it.
A good point re discreet and pragmatic *behind the scenes* diplomacy and negotiation. The *diplomatic back channels*, which it is always a Good Idea to keep open for use at need.
However, Big Daddy Trumpkin doesn't seem to have any idea of what discreet and pragmatic mean. Whatever he may, or may not, have agreed with the Iranians - and giving permission for a hostile enemy to bomb a US base is pretty awful - he could at least have kept quiet about it.
Still, he obviously believes that Law (in whatever form) doesn't apply to him.
Though "bombing that base in Qatar" is an exaggeration given that none of the missiles fired at it reached their target. In part because the warning given made their interception a bit easier.
It would appear that the Iranian government would have felt compelled to respond to an attack on their territory, very few governments in the world would have been in a position to not respond in some form. A symbolic attack on a nearby airbase used by the US military is probably the least that the Iranian government could do to save face.
The Iranian leadership are far better diplomats than the current US government. A symbolic attack is a diplomat gesture, not a military response. It's not an equivalent to the Doolittle raid (which was also a response to an attack which was basically a symbolic gesture, allowing the US government and military to show they were striking back and raise morale but not actually achieving anything significant).
It may well have been a symbolic response, and I can understand the Iranians' need to make it, but why did the Orange Oaf feel it necessary to tell about it? Did he think it would make him look even biglier than ever?
It may well have been a symbolic response, and I can understand the Iranians' need to make it, but why did the Orange Oaf feel it necessary to tell about it? Did he think it would make him look even biglier than ever?
I think he was just saying in public the same sorta thing most politicians would say to their flunkies in private. Whether it qualifies as bragging, or just indifference to social context, I don't know.
Can anyone say why he does anything? When he decides it's OK to store secret documents in the toilet of his private residence then everything else at least has the benefit of being relatively comprehensible. Which is still incomprehensible.
Though "bombing that base in Qatar" is an exaggeration given that none of the missiles fired at it reached their target. In part because the warning given made their interception a bit easier.
It would appear that the Iranian government would have felt compelled to respond to an attack on their territory, very few governments in the world would have been in a position to not respond in some form. A symbolic attack on a nearby airbase used by the US military is probably the least that the Iranian government could do to save face.
The Iranian leadership are far better diplomats than the current US government. A symbolic attack is a diplomat gesture, not a military response. It's not an equivalent to the Doolittle raid (which was also a response to an attack which was basically a symbolic gesture, allowing the US government and military to show they were striking back and raise morale but not actually achieving anything significant).
We need another way of saying "they bombed X" if they lobbed bombs but none of them landed.
Not really - only being able to say ‘they bombed X’ is a helpful part of the fiction. In this case, Iran needs to be able to tell their internal and external supporters that they bombed X, as a way of saving face. And part of that is the US saying it too (or at least not actively contradicting it’)
If that attack is the end (some chance) then everyone’s a winner… yes it’s cynical, but it is what it is.
Doesn’t suggest ‘succeeded’ though, which ‘bombed’ does.
Both sides have got to have an element of ‘they would say that wouldn’t they?’
So Iran has basically come out with a few variants of ‘we’ve really hurt them’ and the US is saying ‘nothing to see’ - crucially Iran isn’t rushing to do it again, and the US isn’t retaliating.
Seriously, ‘bombed’ is good, it’s saying what it needs to!
It may well have been a symbolic response, and I can understand the Iranians' need to make it, but why did the Orange Oaf feel it necessary to tell about it? Did he think it would make him look even biglier than ever?
I think he was just saying in public the same sorta thing most politicians would say to their flunkies in private. Whether it qualifies as bragging, or just indifference to social context, I don't know.
Another example...
A day or so ago, Trump was thrown a softball question by a Fox News interviewer about how to deal with the "bad actor" China hacking American secrets, and he replied "You don't think we do that? That's the way the world works. It's a nasty world."
I mean, on the one hand, it's refreshing to have a world leader who skips the saccharine platitudes and just states the way things are. And for a guy who's so anti-China, it's interesting that he passed on the opportunity to engage in a moralizing rant about how bad they are, and instead just casually lapsed into both-sides-do-it.
Plus, China certainly already knows that the US conducts espionage against them, so it's not like he was revealing state secrets.
Still, though, you have to think that there's a reason prissy diplomatic niceties were invented in the first place.
We need another way of saying "they bombed X" if they lobbed bombs but none of them landed.
We have many such ways. Also, missiles are not bombs.
"Iran launched missiles at a US airbase in Qatar" is fine. If someone can't cope with "launched missiles at" being longer than "bombed", then "attacked" would be OK.
Like the time he discussed the Charleton March by Nazis. There were bad people on both sides?
No. Because in that case the bad people were, in fact, all on one side, which also happened to be Trump's side. So he was clearly trying to draw attention away from Republican bad actors, by making it sound like a universal.
But everyone who isn't a naif knows that both China and the USA are trying to hack each other's secrets. It's just not the customary thing for their respective leaders to admit to it.
This seems so much like when there have been similar sea changes. I think I can trace this all the way back to before the Reformation. Think John Hus on the religious end. Nevertheless I can probably find other attempts to put down changes in other areas.
Laura Loomer has now posted that the Alligator Alcatraz will provide 65 million meals for alligators.
For reference, there are more or less 65 million people in the United States of Latino descent, most of them citizens. This is just a straight up call for ethnic cleansing masquerading as a not-very-funny "joke".
In other news of racial slurs, it would be nice if the American political media would stop claiming that Trump's assault on American academics is some kind of attempt to fight antisemitism.
President Donald Trump used an antisemitic slur to describe exploitative bankers during a speech Thursday as he touted congressional passage of his massive domestic policy bill.
Trump made the remark in Des Moines, Iowa, at what was billed as an event by a nonpartisan group to kick off celebrations for next year's 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. But Trump's campaign-style speech quickly took on a partisan tone, with the president expressing "hate" for the Democrats who voted against his "big, beautiful bill."
While ticking through the bill's provisions, Trump described one aimed at protecting family farmers by allowing them to pay a reduced estate tax when transferring ownership to their children.
"No death tax, no estate tax, no going to the banks and borrowing from, in some cases, a fine banker, and in some cases, Shylocks and bad people," Trump said. "They destroyed a lot of families, but we did the opposite."
Comments
Whereas in reality potential nominees are already jockeying for position.
It's tempting (but totally futile) to wonder what President Harris would have made of Israel v Iran, and the other pressing problems that Trump seems incapable of handling.
Unfortunately, while Harris might have handled the situation with more grace and professionalism, it's entirely likely she would still have been on Team Bomb Everything.
Is it, though? I'd be interested to know what US Shipmates think about this entirely hypothetical question. *Alternative history* is a fascinating rabbit-hole down which to fall...
Leaving aside the possible advantages of incumbency, one of the ironies of the political process as it exists in the United States today is that the skill set required to be a successful president or vice president is almost completely unrelated to the skill set required to successfully run for president or vice president. In other words, Vance's tenure as vice president will have almost no bearing on his fitness as a presidential candidate in 2028.
My expectation is that hypothetical president Harris would probably have continued the Biden administration's policy of continuing to give Israel whatever material support it wants but would not have used American forces to bomb Iran directly.
What do you base that opinion on?
The political continuity of centrist Democrats liking to bomb stuff, mostly. But there's also the fact that you don't get Dick Cheney onside by being a peacenik.
And we should not forget that shortly before trump was elected the first time, Hillary Clinton advocated the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
In other words, the case continues.
I am sure the lawyers hear will give their readings shortly.
Does this, in fact mean, no judge can issue a temporary restraining order until the court comes to a decision, then this decision is appealable?
Short version: SCOTUS seems to be saying that federal district court (trial court) judges, at least in cases like this one, can’t issue universal injunctions, applying everywhere in the country, but rather can only issue injunctions that relate to the parties to the case before them. A district court judge’s decisions may be considered persuasive by other district court judges, but they are not binding on any other judges.
When a federal circuit (appeals) court considers a case, its ruling is binding on all district court judges within that circuit, unless or until SCOTUS rules otherwise.
The Fat Lady has yet to sing, in other words.
@Nick Tamen I believe there is still a way to make a ruling that has nationwide implications, namely making the case a class action suit. How does that work?
I also understand the court decision not only applies to the birthright law, but also a number of other executive orders including cutting off funds to sanctuary cities, stopping the federal funding of transgender surgery and the like.
Will it? One of the things Sotomayor pointed out during oral arguments is that the executive branch has lost every case brought on this matter and has appealed none of them to the Supreme Court. Under the executive's logic, which has now been officially adopted by the Supreme Court, lower courts can only enjoin government actions that directly affect the specific parties of the case no matter how blatantly unconstitutional those actions are. So in this specific case the parties are 22 states, the District of Columbia, some immigrant organizations, and several individual plaintiffs. The birthright citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment still applies to those parties like it always did. In the 28 states that did not joint this suit, Trump's executive order overrides the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment. (The justices in the majority of this case would not put it in those terms, but Sotomayor and Jackson have helpfully done so in their dissents.) This creates a patchwork of different citizenship laws for different people and jurisdictions. A baby born in New York will be an American citizen, while one born in Kentucky might not be. This was, of course, exactly the kind of situation the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted to avoid.
In other news, I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more attention.
I'm pretty sure the Constitution has some words in it about colluding with a hostile government to make war upon the United States, but as demonstrated by Trump v. CASA the actual words of the Constitution seem not to matter any more.
18 U.S.C. § 2381: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or imprisoned and fined, and incapable of holding any U.S. office.”
When people talk about “appealing” things to SCOTUS, what they’re normally really talking about is petitioning SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari to review the lower court decision. Whether to grant such a writ is completely within the discretion of the Court. Only a very small percentage of petitions are granted each term.
Granted, these cases involving executive power are probably more likely to get a writ granted than the typical case. But there are no guarantees.
Yes, the Court did leave open the possibility of injunctions and stays in class action having wider applicability.
I’m afraid I’m headed out the door soon to a funeral that will have me otherwise occupied most of the day, so a longer answer will have to wait.
Short answer: Class actions are complicated and have many more hoops for plaintiffs to jump through. They can take time. In cases like those where the plaintiffs are states, class actions aren’t really an option. “Just make the cases class actions” isn’t necessarily a realistic work-around.
No. It would apply in a sane world, but not here.
But, of course, this will probably never raise to the level of impeachment, though by its very nature should meet the definition of a high crime and misdemeanor.
The comment about citizenship being recognized in New York but not Kentucky has its own problems in regards to how SCOTUS has tied itself in knots this session.
Speaking of which, there was the issue of the court giving parents to opt out of their students reading objectionable books. Could that mean a Muslim parent objecting to the display of the Ten Commandments in a public school or the use of a Bible in the school?
I think the only thing here, in the annals of warfare, is you don’t tend to talk about it. Quietly negotiating some way of saving honour/face between belligerents is as old as the hills.
The only thing that would look sillier than him talking about it would be anyone going after him for it.
However, Big Daddy Trumpkin doesn't seem to have any idea of what discreet and pragmatic mean. Whatever he may, or may not, have agreed with the Iranians - and giving permission for a hostile enemy to bomb a US base is pretty awful - he could at least have kept quiet about it.
Still, he obviously believes that Law (in whatever form) doesn't apply to him.
And if not, I don't think the concept of "giving permission" really applies here.
It would appear that the Iranian government would have felt compelled to respond to an attack on their territory, very few governments in the world would have been in a position to not respond in some form. A symbolic attack on a nearby airbase used by the US military is probably the least that the Iranian government could do to save face.
The Iranian leadership are far better diplomats than the current US government. A symbolic attack is a diplomat gesture, not a military response. It's not an equivalent to the Doolittle raid (which was also a response to an attack which was basically a symbolic gesture, allowing the US government and military to show they were striking back and raise morale but not actually achieving anything significant).
I think he was just saying in public the same sorta thing most politicians would say to their flunkies in private. Whether it qualifies as bragging, or just indifference to social context, I don't know.
Agree with all of this.
Not really - only being able to say ‘they bombed X’ is a helpful part of the fiction. In this case, Iran needs to be able to tell their internal and external supporters that they bombed X, as a way of saving face. And part of that is the US saying it too (or at least not actively contradicting it’)
If that attack is the end (some chance) then everyone’s a winner… yes it’s cynical, but it is what it is.
Doesn’t suggest ‘succeeded’ though, which ‘bombed’ does.
Both sides have got to have an element of ‘they would say that wouldn’t they?’
So Iran has basically come out with a few variants of ‘we’ve really hurt them’ and the US is saying ‘nothing to see’ - crucially Iran isn’t rushing to do it again, and the US isn’t retaliating.
Seriously, ‘bombed’ is good, it’s saying what it needs to!
Another example...
A day or so ago, Trump was thrown a softball question by a Fox News interviewer about how to deal with the "bad actor" China hacking American secrets, and he replied "You don't think we do that? That's the way the world works. It's a nasty world."
I mean, on the one hand, it's refreshing to have a world leader who skips the saccharine platitudes and just states the way things are. And for a guy who's so anti-China, it's interesting that he passed on the opportunity to engage in a moralizing rant about how bad they are, and instead just casually lapsed into both-sides-do-it.
Plus, China certainly already knows that the US conducts espionage against them, so it's not like he was revealing state secrets.
Still, though, you have to think that there's a reason prissy diplomatic niceties were invented in the first place.
We have many such ways. Also, missiles are not bombs.
"Iran launched missiles at a US airbase in Qatar" is fine. If someone can't cope with "launched missiles at" being longer than "bombed", then "attacked" would be OK.
No. Because in that case the bad people were, in fact, all on one side, which also happened to be Trump's side. So he was clearly trying to draw attention away from Republican bad actors, by making it sound like a universal.
But everyone who isn't a naif knows that both China and the USA are trying to hack each other's secrets. It's just not the customary thing for their respective leaders to admit to it.
A photo in the Guardian shows him wearing a red hat inscribed with Gulf of America, but at first glance, I thought it said GOOF of America.
This seems so much like when there have been similar sea changes. I think I can trace this all the way back to before the Reformation. Think John Hus on the religious end. Nevertheless I can probably find other attempts to put down changes in other areas.
It's Radio Libre des Mille Collins level stuff.
For reference, there are more or less 65 million people in the United States of Latino descent, most of them citizens. This is just a straight up call for ethnic cleansing masquerading as a not-very-funny "joke".
In other news of racial slurs, it would be nice if the American political media would stop claiming that Trump's assault on American academics is some kind of attempt to fight antisemitism.