Halls of Shrewd'm / Atheist Shrewds
No. of Recommendations: 13
Going down, down today….
The world is saying “Fuck you” to the 4D chess player
Cue the “a lower dollar is good for trade” crowd.
That ain’t what’s going on.
Say buh bye to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
And we did it to ourselves by electing a jackass.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hee hee hee
No. of Recommendations: 0
Great news for the left - their coordination is working!
No. of Recommendations: 6
Great news for the left - their coordination is working!
Nope. It’s the failure of Trump’s genius 4D chess moves.
Seems the world finally gets sick of bellicosity, armed defenestration of other countries, on again off again tariffs and threats to annex countries and invade others.
Meanwhile, you’re blaming others for the problems he created.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Hee hee hee ~Lyin' Wilton
Ah yes, the struggling, low-income MAGA faithful—too broke for healthcare, heat, or groceries...
Truly, what better moment for ridicule than when the consequences of their own political delusions come home to roost?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Meanwhile, you’re blaming others for the problems he created.
Pointing out facts is never 'blaming'. It's clear where loyalties lie on this board, and it's not with the Constitution of the United States.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Pointing out facts is never 'blaming'. It's clear where loyalties lie on this board, and it's not with the Constitution of the United States.
That’s rich, Dope.
No. of Recommendations: 16
Pointing out facts is never 'blaming'. It's clear where loyalties lie on this board, and it's not with the Constitution of the United States.
But it's obvious that the people on this board don't have any direct impact on U.S. monetary policy (and yes, I know you know that). But it's equally true that the liberals you lambaste as "coordinating" don't have all that much impact on any of the things that would directly affect the strength of the U.S. currency.
I guess I don't entirely understand why you're pushing back on this idea. I don't think there's any real disagreement between you and anyone else that Trump is fundamentally changing the international economic order. He's doing so by leveraging the U.S.' current economic strength to unilaterally change the rules that have governed international benefits, in ways that he believes are more favorable to the United States.
In short, he's going to undo the global international economic system that the U.S. constructed starting back in the mid-1970's. I don't think this is much in dispute.
One of the key elements of that, though, is that the world has pretty much gone along with the dollarization of global financial transactions. That's a massive benefit to the United States, and it helps supercharge our economy. The rest of the world was content to let the U.S. have that benefit and to use the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency, because we were such a reliable partner both economically and militarily. They trusted us with that power.
Well, since we're going to tear up the global international economic system that was in place before Trump took office because we feel it's so darn unfair to the U.S., then that means we're going to also lose some of the benefits of that system. Which may very well include the widespread course of practice of denominating international transactions in dollars and holding dollar-denominated assets as a reserve currency. If the world doesn't get as much benefit from a strong U.S. economy, they might begin to wind down some of the things that helped us be that strong...
No. of Recommendations: 1
That’s rich, Dope.
The truth often is.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well, since we're going to tear up the global international economic system that was in place before Trump took office because we feel it's so darn unfair to the U.S., then that means we're going to also lose some of the benefits of that system. Which may very well include the widespread course of practice of denominating international transactions in dollars and holding dollar-denominated assets as a reserve currency. If the world doesn't get as much benefit from a strong U.S. economy, they might begin to wind down some of the things that helped us be that strong...
Yep, we're all toast.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 7
Yep, we're all toast.
Toast? No. Just worth recognizing that Trump's desire to fundamentally alter the existing international global economic system doesn't just come with upsides (fewer imports! tariff revenue), but also comes with downsides (de-dollarization! increased prominence of China in global economic system!).
That doesn't mean "toast," but it does mean we might end up with some aspects of our situation worse than where we started - even if some aspects are better.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yep, we're all toast.
We will be if we don’t change our ways.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Gold has overtaken the U.S. Dollar as the largest Global Reserve Asset...
Both gold and silver have been on rampages for the past few months.
If past is prologue, they could crater tomorrow.
But one thing is different this time-
The last several booms and busts have been strictly driven by speculation. But as you infer, and it’s certainly true, this current bull market is driven by central bank buying of gold and silver, and even institutional buying as well.
As of yet, speculators, burned by previous booms and busts, have only minimally entered the market.
No. of Recommendations: 20
This is the least conservative government I’ve seen in my lifetime.
When you’re the richest nation on Earth, maybe the genius move isn’t to set fire to every institution that made you rich.
But this president seems determined to prove that even superpowers can perish, not from weakness, but from willful idiocy.
No. of Recommendations: 2
"We have the hottest economy in the world!" ~Trump
HOT does NOT mean what YOU think it means.
Spankee means it is the the GRIFTIEST economy and *he* is the biggest crook of all.
"We have the hottest economy in the world!" ~Trump
No. of Recommendations: 0
Rev. Baloney,
So, did you predict this latest downward fall of the U.S. Dollar?
If so, did you bet against the dollar in the markets and make a bundle (i.e. by loading up on gold, or perhaps some foreign currency instruments)?
If you anticipate in the near future a further significant drop in the value of the dollar--you must, since your contention is that it is soon to lose its status as the world's so-called "reserve currency"--please advise how you are betting in the markets against the dollar so as to make a nice profit.
How much are you investing, and what percentage of your total net worth are you willing to bet?
Maybe you are not willing to bet against the dollar but want to hedge against further declines in its value--since you have declared that further significant declines in the dollar's value are inevitable.
If not, why not? You can predict the future, at least well enough to know that the dollar will see further significant declines.
Do you want to lose a lot of money by doing nothing?
What are you investing in going forward to hedge further dollar declines?
No. of Recommendations: 0
Banksy,
Same question I asked the other genius, Rev. Baloney.
Did you bet against the dollar? Did you bet on gold? Did you make any money?
If not previously, what about going forward?
Are you betting against the dollar in the markets? Are you hedging your dollar exposure in any significant way?
If not, why not?
If yes, how are you hedging your dollar exposure, or how are you actively betting against the dollar?
No. of Recommendations: 3
If we hadn't already bought the air tickets, we'd probably cancel this years' vacation. Not so much for the declining dollar (though that hurts), but because Europeans have their own version of MAGA ("Make America Go Away"). This country is cultivating a strong anti-American sentiment. While unlikely, I would rather not be on the receiving end of that sentiment. Ironically, one of our planned stops is Greenland.
Last trip, I got into a discussion with a Scotsman business owner. 1poorlady was browsing, and he wasn't busy. He was very puzzled why the US went for the Felon. We had a civil discussion, and I tried to answer as accurately as possible (as little partisanship as I could). It's worse now. Hopefully, if it ever comes up, they'll give us the benefit of the doubt at least long enough to say "we didn't vote for him, and don't agree with his policies".
So far in our travels we have never encountered foreign "rednecks" who chant "EU...EU...EU". Not literally, but you get the allusion.
No. of Recommendations: 14
It's clear where loyalties lie on this board, and it's not with the Constitution of the United States.
No offense intended, but my ironymeter just broke. This administration is shredding the Constitution. The left is trying (and failing) to get government to be Constitutional again. Bill of Rights stuff. Fourteenth Amendment. Presumption of innocence. Due process (Fourth Amendment, I believe, so part of the BoR). All that stuff that used to be taken for granted, and is now being taken away.
Except for the right-leaning board members here, that is what this board has been screaming about for over a year now.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Toast? No. Just worth recognizing that Trump's desire to fundamentally alter the existing international global economic system doesn't just come with upsides (fewer imports! tariff revenue), but also comes with downsides (de-dollarization! increased prominence of China in global economic system!).
That doesn't mean "toast," but it does mean we might end up with some aspects of our situation worse than where we started - even if some aspects are better.Glad you said that last part, because "changing rules-based international order" carries with it both upside and downside. That nuance is the most important thing to discuss, not whinging over the change itself. What kind of economy should we have? That's the important question.
Some can point to recent stats that say American manufacturing has never been higher, that the current system is still enabling us to produce more. But even that carries a lot of nuance and the FRED data curiously only goes back to 1988:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GOMAHere's a paper I'm digesting:
https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pu... In 2022, there was $15.0 trillion of value added (i.e.,
GDP) in global manufacturing in constant 2015 dollars, which is 17.5 % of the value
added by all industries ($86.1 trillion), according to the United Nations Statistics
Division. Since 1970, manufacturing ranged between 13.8 % and 17.5 % of global GDP.
The top 10 manufacturing countries accounted for $10.7 trillion or 71.0 % of global
manufacturing value added: China (31.0 %), United States (15.1 %), Japan (6.6 %),
Germany (4.9 %), South Korea (3.1 %), India (3.1 %), United Kingdom (1.9 %), Italy
(1.9 %), Mexico (1.8 %), and France (1.7 %) (United Nations Statistics Division 2024).Others can point to the fact that the basic middle class American dream story is getting harder and harder to realize. I interact with a lot of younger engineers. The ones in their late 20's/early 30s despair of ever owning a home nowadays. My parents bought their first house on 1 income, rarely worked evenings, never had to work on weekends. My wife and I bought our first house on 2 incomes, almost always work part of every weekend and often do things in the evenings for work. We will (barring an economic calamity) retire comfortably, but to do so we've had to pound away at this lifestyle for 30 years. That's a lot to ask for anyone.
We work in high tech, both of us. But what about the Rust Belt and small towns that used to have things like mills and small factories that make things? They've been left behind as the US has shifted to more of a service-based economy:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?rid=53&...(Services was 39% of GDP in 1947. Now it's 61% of GDP).
Service-based stuff is more localized (as opposed to a good one can ship to any market). The closure of mills, mines and other processing facilities has left a lot of places in the United States behind. Is this a good thing?
Then there's the looming specter of a conflict with China, which has 2x our manufacturing capacity but even that doesn't tell the full story when you throw in raw material sourcing and processing, which they also have....
No. of Recommendations: 1
The left is trying (and failing) to get government to be Constitutional again.
And don't take this the wrong way: No. The left is doing no such thing.
The left is normalizing violence and and intimidation tactics against federal law enforcement. I'll remind you that this all began with left wing cities and states deciding to thumb their noses at federal immigration laws with Sanctuary City policies.
All this is avoided by simply handing criminals over to ICE at the city/county lockups: no drama, no fuss. But no. Local democrats can't have that so we have riots in our streets and increasing concentrations of federal force in cities to try to maintain order.
There's no way the left can look at what's happening and absolve themselves of blame. No way at all.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Then there's the looming specter of a conflict with China, which has 2x our manufacturing capacity but even that doesn't tell the full story when you throw in raw material sourcing and processing, which they also have....
And our current policies are pushing nations towards China. Nations are allowing Chinese bases into their countries because we abandoned those nations. Now the EU and Canada, our allies, are viewing China as more reliable than we are. That's a problem, and entirely self-inflicted.
You do make a good point about the Rust Belt. We also worked in high-tech, though in our sector, a lot of that work was already being done overseas. We weren't immune to off-shoring. High-tech still has labor costs, and the cost of labor overseas is less. And other nations are producing fine engineers today. No need for the expensive American engineer. I agree with your implication that this is not a good thing. I don't believe this administration has made any of it better. If they even want to (I'm not convinced), they're going about it back-asswards.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Service-based stuff is more localized (as opposed to a good one can ship to any market). The closure of mills, mines and other processing facilities has left a lot of places in the United States behind. Is this a good thing?
It's no more a "good thing" than it is a good thing to have a factory that emits pollutants. Every factory emits pollutants. You can't assess in isolation whether it's a "good thing" or not whether pollution is being emitted, because pollution is forever and always undesired as side effect of factories - so if you're figuring whether it's a good thing or not, it has to be balanced against the economic positives of the factory. We might prefer it if no factory, mill, mine or processing facility ever closed, because such closures have negative consequences for the places they are located. That's as true of domestic competition as international, BTW.
Then there's the looming specter of a conflict with China, which has 2x our manufacturing capacity but even that doesn't tell the full story when you throw in raw material sourcing and processing, which they also have....
Sure. But the reason we have the best military in the world is because we're one of the richest countries in the world. One of the reasons we're the richest countries in the world is because we built the current global economic system to benefit us. That's what allows us to spend about a trillion per year on defense. It's what allows us to have massive technological advantages over other countries. Because we've built an economy that: i) operates as efficiently as possible, allowing us to be very wealthy; ii) rewards brain activity as much as possible, allowing us to be very technologically advanced and attract the world's best brains.
There's lots of unknowns, but it's hard to argue with success. Young people overall aren't having trouble living the American dream because of anything having to with international trade, it's because labor-intensive goods that rely on positional scarcity (housing, education, health care) are always going to increase in cost relative to the economy as a whole as society gets richer. So unless you do something with your domestic politics to change that, tinkering with the international structure isn't going to do anything about the relative cost of those goods.
No. of Recommendations: 12
You do make a good point about the Rust Belt. We also worked in high-tech, though in our sector, a lot of that work was already being done overseas. We weren't immune to off-shoring. High-tech still has labor costs, and the cost of labor overseas is less. And other nations are producing fine engineers today. No need for the expensive American engineer. I agree with your implication that this is not a good thing. I don't believe this administration has made any of it better. If they even want to (I'm not convinced), they're going about it back-asswards.
Manufacturing jobs in 2025 went down significantly, losing over 60,000 jobs. This included 8 consecutive months of declines.
The thing that MAGA supporters are oblivious to (to their own detriment), is that Trump will screw anyone to steal a buck. Middle class Americans, manufacturing employees, farmers, they’re all just easy marks.
No. of Recommendations: 1
And our current policies are pushing nations towards China. Nations are allowing Chinese bases into their countries because we abandoned those nations. Now the EU and Canada, our allies, are viewing China as more reliable than we are. That's a problem, and entirely self-inflicted.
Superficially. What the US media doesn't report but what sophisticated observers of world events should note is that there is an endemic weakness among G7 leaders: they've imported a population that doesn't want to assimilate, they've made disastrous decisions with their industrial sectors and energy production capabilities and now they're scrambling to find ways to prop themselves up with cheap goods imported from China and the Golden Promise (which will never be realized) of access to China's massive market. All these leaders like Carney are trying to buy themselves electoral time and see in Trump an easy layup in terms of Blaming Somebody Else for their own bad decisions. In this case it's "Blame Trump for overthrowing the rules-based-international-order"...that gave rise to a resurgent, aggressive and utterly ruthless China in the first place.
'Pushing countries to align with China' isn't thought through. Ask serious Aussies or Japanese what they think of China and see what answer you get; they know exactly who and what's coming for them in a few years.
No. of Recommendations: 3
You should have told the Scotsman that some U.S. pundits believe that Trump won because 1) Americans on the whole are sick and tired of all the illegal immigration and 2) income tax cuts.
Also--may be a newsflash to the likes of you--if you harshly criticize your own President, or your own country for voting for that President, a typical foreigner is going to view you as an untrustworthy, traitorous a-hole--even if they themselves don't particularly care for Trump.
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's no more a "good thing" than it is a good thing to have a factory that emits pollutants. Every factory emits pollutants. You can't assess in isolation whether it's a "good thing" or not whether pollution is being emitted, because pollution is forever and always undesired as side effect of factories - so if you're figuring whether it's a good thing or not, it has to be balanced against the economic positives of the factory. We might prefer it if no factory, mill, mine or processing facility ever closed, because such closures have negative consequences for the places they are located. That's as true of domestic competition as international, BTW.
And service industries don't create other forms of pollution or other kinds of externalities that have adverse effects?
One criticism of the recent AI boom is that it's circular: the value creation cycle goes from OpenAI --> Microsoft/Google --> NVIDIA and back again and doesn't involve much else in the economy leading to questions about its long term efficacy and overall robustness.
National economies need balance to weather storms. Too much of a service industry leads to too many dependencies on people's willingness to buy inferior goods (which are the first things cut in a downturn). The same can be said of too much dependence on an export economy as well hence the need for a healthy distribution across the board.
No. of Recommendations: 4
And service industries don't create other forms of pollution or other kinds of externalities that have adverse effects?
They do. My point wasn't "factories bad." My point was that it doesn't make sense to ask "Is economic dislocation good?" in isolation, any more than it makes sense to ask "Is pollution good?" in isolation (whether talking about factories or service industries). Of course the undesired and unintended side effects of an economic policy aren't inherently "good" - but that doesn't tell you anything.
National economies need balance to weather storms. Too much of a service industry leads to too many dependencies on people's willingness to buy inferior goods (which are the first things cut in a downturn).
Maybe? I mean, it's not like the U.S. economy hasn't weathered storms - right? I think the main argument against ripping up the global economic rulebook is that we have been winning under the current system for the last six or seven decades, even through all the storms.
I understand that economic dislocation hit the Rust Belt hard, but a big part of that was due not only to trade with China, but from technological innovation and internal competition from the U.S. South, as manufacturing (and iconically auto manufacturing) relocated to the South. That's why we still have a lot of manufacturing output without having a lot of blue collar jobs in the Midwest. And messing around with trade policy and blowing up the global economic system isn't going to change that.
No. of Recommendations: 1
No one's ripping up any rulebooks.
You're guilty of the reification fallacy--assuming an abstraction is a real thing.
Stop doing that please.
No. of Recommendations: 2
So, did you predict this latest downward fall of the U.S. Dollar?
I began hedging against the dollar decades ago. When we invaded Iraq, to be precise.
That very large percentage of my portfolio pretty much sat dormant for the last decade and a half. But the past year has more than made up for that lag.
So no, I didn’t predict what happened to the dollar during the last week, though I’ve been positioned for it for a long time. I might well have figured wrong…… but I didn’t.
I’m anticipating that steve’s time in the doldrums will be one of the next things to come to an end, though he tends to trade on a shorter time scale.
Undoubtedly, steve remembers me banging the table for gold on the old Mish board at MF.
No. of Recommendations: 1
what better moment for ridicule than when the consequences of their own political delusions come home to roost?
When they get their WELFARE BENEFITS AND SNAP PAYMENTS. What would they do WITHOUT THOSE?
No. of Recommendations: 1
it's not with the Constitution of the United States.
Ok, your choice.
When do YOU move to Russia? Putin needs more "recruits" on the western front with Ukraine.
Or is it China? Xi needs more slave workers in a variety of areas.
North Korea? Same need as China.
Nowhere NEAR AS CUSHY as a welfare recipient in the US. As you have demonstrated.
No. of Recommendations: 1
That’s rich, Dope.
The truth often is.
So is manure, which is THE main diet component you get from the rightwing sites you visit.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Then you might find this of interest:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/insight/rare-fed-mo...The U.S. dollar has sharply declined after a rare New York Fed 'rate check' with currency traders signaled possible coordination with Japan to support the yen. This drop, alongside political uncertainty and geopolitical tensions, has driven gold past $5,000 per ounce for the first time as investors seek safer assets. The developments come ahead of a closely watched Fed meeting under intense political pressure.In other words, the hypothesis of your thread is wrong.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The left is normalizing violence and and intimidation tactics against federal law enforcement. I'll remind you that this all began with left wing cities and states deciding to thumb their noses at federal immigration laws with Sanctuary City policies.
No to the first point. The violence is the summary executions by ICE.
The second point is irrelevant. This does not give the federal government authority to suspend the Constitution. If they have problems with the sanctuary laws, challenge them in court.
I will note that those sanctuary laws do not stop the feds from going in and enforcing the law. Our local sheriff got in trouble a few years back because he was doing immigration sweeps, but he wasn't legally allowed to do them. Phoenix already isn't a sanctuary city, but he was making the entire county illegally an anti-sanctuary county. Not that this has any relevance to the main point, which is that the Constitution isn't suspended just because the feds aren't happy with something. That's just not how it works.
No. of Recommendations: 25
I'll remind you that this all began with left wing cities and states deciding to thumb their noses at federal immigration laws with Sanctuary City policies.
Which they're allowed to do under the Constitution, which makes it hard to understand your reference to the Constitution earlier in the thread. We have a form of government that maintains the States as independent sovereigns, with their own authority to govern that is independent from and not delegated from the national government. Unique (I think?) among nations, our federal government was created with power delegated from the States, not vice versa.
What that means is that the States do not exist to serve the federal government's purposes, and thus cannot be "commandeered" to use their resources to enforce or promote compliance with federal law. They have to follow federal law, but they can't be forced to serve as an instrumentality of the federal government.
No. of Recommendations: 0
You do make a good point about the Rust Belt. We also worked in high-tech, though in our sector, a lot of that work was already being done overseas.
I worked for five years in low/mid tech--manufacturing non-automated capital equipment. Designs were from the 1946-1975 time frame. Company gone by the 1990s.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Which they're allowed to do under the Constitution
Says who? Localities do not make national immigration policy. To my recollection Sanctuary City laws haven't been fought out in front of the Supreme Court.
What that means is that the States do not exist to serve the federal government's purposes, and thus cannot be "commandeered" to use their resources to enforce or promote compliance with federal law. They have to follow federal law, but they can't be forced to serve as an instrumentality of the federal government.
This very thin gruel but I understand the legal argument being made here (which is around who can compel resources to do what in what scenario).
No. of Recommendations: 1
I understand that economic dislocation hit the Rust Belt hard, but a big part of that was due not only to trade with China, but from technological innovation and internal competition from the U.S. South, as manufacturing (and iconically auto manufacturing) relocated to the South.
The key point was MANAGEMENT was oriented toward "cost reduction" in order to boost profits. So, production was sent outside the US. Apple->China is the big one many people recognize.
That, in turn, had a major impact on the US tech economy--just not in the way many people think about it.
Chinese mfrs, over the years, became the ONLY source to do a variety of assembly because the development of that tech did NOT begin in the US. It was invented and perfected in China. So, the US lacks the *technical skills* to do many things today.
Remember the screw-up/faceplant by Spankee and CBP with Korea? A multi-billion $$$ US battery plant under construction in the South stopped dead in its tracks--because the ONLY people who could "do the specialized work" were DEPORTED by the US. The workers had temporary work permits to do THAT SPECIFIC/SPECIALIZED JOB in the US at that plant. Deported. Some refused to return to the US. No idea how much THAT cost the govt.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Says who?
The courts. All the way up to the Supreme Court.
You know, the stuff in the US Constitution AND US law that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
No. of Recommendations: 14
Says who? Localities do not make national immigration policy. To my recollection Sanctuary City laws haven't been fought out in front of the Supreme Court. Says SCOTUS. In 1997, in
Printz v. U.S., the Court held that the federal government cannot
The Constitution's structure reveals a principle that controls these cases: the system of "dual sovereignty." See, e. g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 457. Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution's text. See, e. g., Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government's power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service-and at no cost to itself-the police officers of the 50 States. Pp. 918-922.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/89...That case dealt with forcing state officials to run background checks for firearms under the Brady law, but the general principle is known as "Anti-Commandeering." Basically, the Supremacy Clause requires everyone (including state officials) to
obey federal law, but the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from requiring state officials to
implement or enforce federal law, or to be "dragooned" into service to help the federal government enforce federal law. They can't make state officials administer background checks.
The same principle would apply to sanctuary laws. The federal government can require states to follow federal immigration law, but they can't force a state to let the federal government use its jails or prisons to hold people for them (for example).
No. of Recommendations: 2
Chinese mfrs, over the years, became the ONLY source to do a variety of assembly because the development of that tech did NOT begin in the US. It was invented and perfected in China. So, the US lacks the *technical skills* to do many things today.
Also, we don't demand that they have the same laws about forced labor, child labor, and pollution as we do. Semiconductor assembly is a very dirty process. You can make it clean, but it's expensive. So we farm out the assembly portion to places that don't care (and are, therefore, cheaper). Big assembly houses in semi-con are located in the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and China (those are the big ones we used). Amkor has facilities in all of those countries, I believe. We have domestic assembly, but we only ever used it for fast-turn small lot assemblies (generally to do some debugging of an unreleased product).
No. of Recommendations: 2
Ah yes, the struggling, low-income MAGA faithful—too broke for healthcare, heat, or groceries...
Truly, what better moment for ridicule than when the consequences of their own political delusions come home to roost?
***
Look how a rich Republican talks about poor people.
Are you gonna force abortions on poor women next?
No. of Recommendations: 0
That case dealt with forcing state officials to run background checks for firearms under the Brady law, but the general principle is known as "Anti-Commandeering." Basically, the Supremacy Clause requires everyone (including state officials) to obey federal law, but the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from requiring state officials to implement or enforce federal law, or to be "dragooned" into service to help the federal government enforce federal law. They can't make state officials administer background checks.
That's an entirely different matter to immigration enforcement!
No. of Recommendations: 13
That's an entirely different matter to immigration enforcement!
How so? Immigration enforcement is a federal law. They can't make state and local LEO's enforce federal laws for them.
So if someone's been released from jail, the federal government can't make the local officials hold onto that guy on their behalf. He is no longer subject to being incarcerated under state/local law, and the state is under no obligation to use their resources to hold onto him solely to help the feds enforce immigration law. They don't have to let the feds use their facilities, their jails, their officers to keep the guy locked up just so it's easier for the feds to grab him.
No. of Recommendations: 4
That's an entirely different matter to immigration enforcement!
Not really. It's the same law being applied to a different circumstance. The states are under no obligation to enforce immigration law, and -in fact- are often not allowed to. That's part of what got our sheriff in trouble. He was tasked with enforcing county law, and the county had no law about persons present illegally who otherwise weren't committing crimes.
Immigration law, like the Brady bill, was passed by Congress. The courts found that states could not be forced to enforce those laws. Different laws, but same legal point. At least as I understand it. I'm sure albaby will correct any error on my part.
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Minneapolis Democrat political establishment has gone far beyond merely failing to actively assist federal authorities from enforcing immigration law.
They have actively encouraged people in Minneapolis, illegals and citizens, to defy federal law.
Lock 'em up!
Now Tim Walz is trying to play friendly with Trump because he realizes if his welfare scandal continues to blow up he might find himself subject to prosecution by the feds.
Too late.
Lock him up!
No. of Recommendations: 3
These aren't serious people. Please stop replying to them.
No. of Recommendations: 5
They have actively encouraged people in Minneapolis, illegals and citizens, to defy federal law.
You lie.
No. of Recommendations: 21
"So if someone's been released from jail, the federal government can't make the local officials hold onto that guy on their behalf. He is no longer subject to being incarcerated under state/local law, and the state is under no obligation to use their resources to hold onto him solely to help the feds enforce immigration law. They don't have to let the feds use their facilities, their jails, their officers to keep the guy locked up just so it's easier for the feds to grab him." - Albaby
You have to remember where people like Dope, BHM, and LurkerMom get their information from.
They think there are roving bands of violent criminal immigrants the local law enforcement regularly pick up and release back into the wild. They think Trump's actions are eliminating these people. They don't comprehend that a very vast majority of the people caught by Trump's actions in places like Minnesota are catching immigrants (sometimes illegal, often not illegal) that are peaceful people who have never had a run in with local police. If any violent or hardened immigrant criminals are picked up by local law enforcement, they are likely detained anyway because local law enforcement wants to charge them with local crimes.
I have seen a couple of studies that have shown Trump's immigration crackdown on places like LA, Portland, Washington, Chicago, and now Minnesota have resulted in at least an order of magnitude more U.S. citizens being detained (and obviously never charged with anything) than any violent, hardened immigrant criminals being captured.
Remember where they get their information from. They need to be scared into thinking of roving bands of brown people running around threatening everyone.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Now Tim Walz is trying to play friendly with Trump because he realizes if his welfare scandal continues to blow up he might find himself subject to prosecution by the feds.
That's one way of looking at a responsible human being trying to deescalate a tense situation. When did you stop caring HC?
No. of Recommendations: 5
Albaby:
but the general principle is known as "Anti-Commandeering." Basically, the Supremacy Clause requires everyone (including state officials) to obey federal law, but the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from requiring state officials to implement or enforce federal law, or to be "dragooned" into service to help the federal government enforce federal law. They can't make state officials administer background checks.
Dope:That's an entirely different matter to immigration enforcement!
Dope, Constitutional Law is taught in two courses in the first year of law school. This is basic stuff that every first year law student runs into. You do not have the legal understanding of Constitutional Law that you think you do. You've never take a course in Constitution Law, have you? It shows. It's time you unrubed yourself and took a course (or two), your arguments would be so much better. As it is, Albaby continually has to explain the Constitution to you and you seem to just not get it, and disbelieve what any first year law student has been taught, and which is historically true.
No. of Recommendations: 3
It's time you unrubed yourself and took a course (or two), your arg
Every now and then I need a reminder as to why I don’t take you seriously. Thanks for this one.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Every now and then I need a reminder as to why I don’t take you seriously. Thanks for this one.
Yep. I ignore the doppelgänger twins. They speak with a fork tongue.
What’s funny is when they both appear in the same thread.
No. of Recommendations: 0
he might find himself subject to prosecution by the feds.
Nope. Try again.
Walz was never given the authority by the govt to carry out those investigations. So, it all kicks back to SPANKEE THE GRIFTER.
