Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Think of how to resist, in even the tiniest of ways. Don't give in to despair. Beyond the performative supertrolling and the destructive cruelty, the emoluments stuff alone is to enough to ... well, I don't know what.
No despair here. There's plenty to do, and I do something that is at least at cross purposes with Dump and the radical right nearly every day. And I encourage others to do the same for whatever specific issues they identify with.
@JD_co said- "Pucker up, Jamie. All heil the leader. Yes, politics at play."
The same thing happened in Germany also. All the big companies and financial institutions were major players.
They said it could never happen again. But I feel like we are watching it happen now in real-time. Stephen Miller is an interesting story - Jewish background, but somehow gravitated to the current regime. Promising career opportunities can twist your mind, I guess.
One of the best resistance actions these days is to avoid using corporate-controlled (and now increasingly censored) social media like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Sure, it can be painful and/or annoying, but at least you are in control of what you see and hear, not some corporate algorithm influenced by politics.
There are any number of other free/community social media services/platforms/environments that offer the same or better service without all the toxic crap and algorithmic nonsense.
Not yet, though I might need to set an account up as part of an institute relaunch at work.
I've not looked into it closely for personal use, but from what I know, it seems like 'old Twitter' -- but I wonder for how long? It's going to need ongoing funding, and I'm sure at some point algos, advertisers, and toxicity will come into play again just like on Twitter.
While unconditional pardons are allowed by the Constitution, this does not mean that pardoning the nation’s enemies does not violate his oath of office “ to faithfully execute the Office of the United States …”. I think a strong argument can be made that by pardoning people convicted of sedition, he is violating his oath of office, as these people were acting to overthrow the Government and subvert the Constitution.
There's a fair amount of incendiary language here as well as factual errors - not unexpected in the heat of the moment. Let me try to take the temperature down a notch or two and sort things out.
"National enemies" - this is the sort of language that is used to justify governmental overreach. Some examples:
Sedition Act of 1798 - this "criminalized certain speech—specifically any speech that “defamed” or brought into “disrepute” the country’s (Federalist) president and Congress or their policies." Though never overruled (the Supreme Court had not declared its supremacy in Marbury v Madison (1803) at the time it was passed), this law is generally regarded as unconstitutional. (See this section of the NY Times v Sullivan decision.)
Sedition Act of 1918 - passed to prevent spoken/written opposition to Wilson taking the US into WW II. Eugene V Debs' conviction under the Act was upheld by the Supreme Court 9-0. (A reading of his 4 minute "seditious" speech can be heard here.) Only later did we have the "Great Dissent".
Martial law in S. Korea, justified with similar language("anti-state forces")
"overthrow the government" - that may be what your lying eyes told you (as did mine tell me), but no one was convicted of acting to overthrow the government. None. The most serious convictions were for talking about such actions. Let me explain.
There are some crimes that I consider "sketchy". Such as felony murder, where someone can be convicted for murder when what they did was drive the getaway car in a robbery gone bad (someone got killed).
Likewise, conspiracy is a crime in which someone can be convicted for doing nothing but talking. In fact, no one in a "conspiracy" need have taken any illegal action. Say you and I talk about bumping off El Presidente. I apply for a gun permit. A few days after it is granted, I go out and legally purchase a gun. There you go. I've taken an action in furtherance of our "conspiracy", and now you're just as guilty as I of seditious conspiracy.
There were 18 people charged with seditious conspiracy 18 U.S. Code § 2384) - talking about overthrowing the government. 14 were convicted, and I haven't checked how many of those did anything beyond urging insurrection. Given the nature of conspiracy, it is understandable that some people would say that those convicted didn't "do anything".
Of course they did, and I'm not suggesting that the convictions weren't justified. But I am suggesting that not all of them may have "act[ed] to overthrow the government". They conspired, which is something different. Even those who did actively participate weren't charged with rebellion or insurrection under 18 U.S. Code § 2383
Which finally(!) gets us to the pardons arguably violating the oath of office. The crime being addressed was conspiracy, not sedition, not insurrection. Of the 14 convicted, 10 were not pardoned. For all the handwringing about blanket pardons, the worst offenders - the ones conspiring to overthrow the government - were handled on a case by case basis. https://theconversation.com/what-is-seditious-conspiracy-which-is-among-the-most-serious-crimes-trump-pardoned-248060
What is this "strong argument" of which you speak? I speak of the right of kings, passed down to US Presidents in the form of the absolute right to grant pardons. Hamilton felt that the president should be able to pardon even treasonists. Though he was mistaken in thinking that the Congressional power of impeachment would necessarily guard against a President pardoning those who committed treason on his behalf. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-2/ALDE_00013317/
Whether Jan 6th qualified as sedition or not is a legal technicality.
We watched a bunch of whackjobs killing police officers. Killing them, intent to harm others. Dump encouraged this. He is not a king, though by the letter of the law he can pardon just about anybody he wants to.
He should be behind bars for a number of infractions, this being chief among them.
not seeing how getting of Fb and x is much of a resistance action
diversifying your sources of information/interaction away from echo chambers (including TV) is always a good thing, and in this environment, stands in opposition to the polarized slop they prefer we feed on such sites as the 'primary' source of information, thus keeping us perpetually enraged and engaged ... so Meta et.al profit from it, the politicians profit from it, but everyone else just has to suck it.
Every day I dive into Salon, Slate, DailyBeast, TNR, Atlantic, NewYorker, NYReview of Books, Vox, Politico, NYmag, Guardian, the Times and WaPo, BostonGlobe, and a few other sites and blogs (not bragging, just a compulsive retired editor/writer). AP, Reuters, NPR, Huffpo, USAToday often. I watch progtard tv. Diversified to some extent, and I seek out other thinking but can seldom find anything genuinely thoughtful from WSJ, National Review or Cato, much less the Claremont crap. Twitter remains useful to breaking and underreported news sometimes. Facebook is a message board for seniors more than not.
“Wannabe dictator Donald Trump’s Friday Night Massacre of more than a dozen inspectors general is blatantly illegal and cannot stand. These internal government watchdogs are entrusted by Congress with independent oversight authority to prevent corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer money. Purging these nonpartisan, independent federal employees and replacing them with Trump loyalists is straight out of the Project 2025 playbook, which calls for the Trump administration to install “their own IGs” so that they “have control of the people that work within the government.” In addition to flouting federal law, this power play dismantles one of the most important mechanisms for transparency and government accountability.
By systematically removing checks and balances Trump is not only opening the door to corruption and illegality; he’s trying to pave his way to supreme authority,” said Ranking Member Huffman.
And who exactly is going to step in and challenge or prevent this illegality?
Nobody. He owns the Supreme Court and half the judges in the system. He owns the GOP. He is destabilizing our entire Democracy, removing guardrails, installing mindless "loyalists". He thinks the DOJ is there to SERVE him.
At this point, nobody is doing squat. The Dems are toothless. Authoritarianism 101.
And MAGA loyalists love it. Let Rome burn - screw these folks.
They just 'temporarily' suspended ALL federal grants and spending on current grant awards. Researchers from all fields are going absolutely batsh--t tonight. (I personally have nearly $5M waiting to be funded.)
"The memo states its orders should not be “construed” to impact Social Security or Medicare recipients, and also says the federal financial assistance put on hold “does not include assistance provided directly to individuals.”"
@rforno. This seems like a big deal. It seems now like he is pushing the envelope day by day and waiting for pushback,,,,, which doesn’t exist. He is blowing past the rule of law, checks and balances and moving into a whole new order of unchecked power and control. This can’t end well.
They just 'temporarily' suspended ALL federal grants and spending on current grant awards. Researchers from all fields are going absolutely batsh--t tonight. (I personally have nearly $5M waiting to be funded.)
"The memo states its orders should not be “construed” to impact Social Security or Medicare recipients, and also says the federal financial assistance put on hold “does not include assistance provided directly to individuals.”"
@rforno, do you use asap.gov for your fed grants? It's shut for me while it decides whether I have "privileged access" or not ... a new development. I'm provisionally interpreting that to mean it is actually shut down for existing CAs/grants, but I guess I'll see if I get an email giving me "privileged" access. I can't think of any reason I'd be considered privileged.
They just 'temporarily' suspended ALL federal grants and spending on current grant awards. Researchers from all fields are going absolutely batsh--t tonight. (I personally have nearly $5M waiting to be funded.)
"The memo states its orders should not be “construed” to impact Social Security or Medicare recipients, and also says the federal financial assistance put on hold “does not include assistance provided directly to individuals.”"
@rforno, do you use asap.gov for your fed grants? It's shut for me while it decides whether I have "privileged access" or not ... a new development. I'm provisionally interpreting that to mean it is actually shut down for existing CAs/grants, but I guess I'll see if I get an email giving me "privileged" access. I can't think of any reason I'd be considered privileged.
I use Research.Gov (formerly NSF FastLane). As of tonight, nobody knows anything.....
Comments
fortunately here fur die goyim means "before (in front of) the nations"
of the bloody world
if you are low in despair, I follow you !
The same thing happened in Germany also. All the big companies and financial institutions were major players.
There are any number of other free/community social media services/platforms/environments that offer the same or better service without all the toxic crap and algorithmic nonsense.
I've not looked into it closely for personal use, but from what I know, it seems like 'old Twitter' -- but I wonder for how long? It's going to need ongoing funding, and I'm sure at some point algos, advertisers, and toxicity will come into play again just like on Twitter.
"National enemies" - this is the sort of language that is used to justify governmental overreach. Some examples:
- Sedition Act of 1798 - this "criminalized certain speech—specifically any speech that “defamed” or brought into “disrepute” the country’s (Federalist) president and Congress or their policies." Though never overruled (the Supreme Court had not declared its supremacy in Marbury v Madison (1803) at the time it was passed), this law is generally regarded as unconstitutional. (See this section of the NY Times v Sullivan decision.)
- Sedition Act of 1918 - passed to prevent spoken/written opposition to Wilson taking the US into WW II. Eugene V Debs' conviction under the Act was upheld by the Supreme Court 9-0. (A reading of his 4 minute "seditious" speech can be heard here.) Only later did we have the "Great Dissent".
- Martial law in S. Korea, justified with similar language("anti-state forces")
"overthrow the government" - that may be what your lying eyes told you (as did mine tell me), but no one was convicted of acting to overthrow the government. None. The most serious convictions were for talking about such actions. Let me explain.There are some crimes that I consider "sketchy". Such as felony murder, where someone can be convicted for murder when what they did was drive the getaway car in a robbery gone bad (someone got killed).
Likewise, conspiracy is a crime in which someone can be convicted for doing nothing but talking. In fact, no one in a "conspiracy" need have taken any illegal action. Say you and I talk about bumping off El Presidente. I apply for a gun permit. A few days after it is granted, I go out and legally purchase a gun. There you go. I've taken an action in furtherance of our "conspiracy", and now you're just as guilty as I of seditious conspiracy.
There were 18 people charged with seditious conspiracy 18 U.S. Code § 2384) - talking about overthrowing the government. 14 were convicted, and I haven't checked how many of those did anything beyond urging insurrection. Given the nature of conspiracy, it is understandable that some people would say that those convicted didn't "do anything".
Of course they did, and I'm not suggesting that the convictions weren't justified. But I am suggesting that not all of them may have "act[ed] to overthrow the government". They conspired, which is something different. Even those who did actively participate weren't charged with rebellion or insurrection under 18 U.S. Code § 2383
Which finally(!) gets us to the pardons arguably violating the oath of office. The crime being addressed was conspiracy, not sedition, not insurrection. Of the 14 convicted, 10 were not pardoned. For all the handwringing about blanket pardons, the worst offenders - the ones conspiring to overthrow the government - were handled on a case by case basis.
https://theconversation.com/what-is-seditious-conspiracy-which-is-among-the-most-serious-crimes-trump-pardoned-248060
What is this "strong argument" of which you speak? I speak of the right of kings, passed down to US Presidents in the form of the absolute right to grant pardons. Hamilton felt that the president should be able to pardon even treasonists. Though he was mistaken in thinking that the Congressional power of impeachment would necessarily guard against a President pardoning those who committed treason on his behalf.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-2/ALDE_00013317/
Lastly, for anyone who's read this far and is curious as I was about what Jefferson ("I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing") might have thought about Jan 6, here's a fascinating 1 hr podcast.
https://jeffersonhour.com/blog/1431
We watched a bunch of whackjobs killing police officers. Killing them, intent to harm others. Dump encouraged this. He is not a king, though by the letter of the law he can pardon just about anybody he wants to.
He should be behind bars for a number of infractions, this being chief among them.
not seeing how getting off Fb and x is much of a resistance action
“Wannabe dictator Donald Trump’s Friday Night Massacre of more than a dozen inspectors general is blatantly illegal and cannot stand. These internal government watchdogs are entrusted by Congress with independent oversight authority to prevent corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer money. Purging these nonpartisan, independent federal employees and replacing them with Trump loyalists is straight out of the Project 2025 playbook, which calls for the Trump administration to install “their own IGs” so that they “have control of the people that work within the government.” In addition to flouting federal law, this power play dismantles one of the most important mechanisms for transparency and government accountability.
By systematically removing checks and balances Trump is not only opening the door to corruption and illegality; he’s trying to pave his way to supreme authority,” said Ranking Member Huffman.
At this point, nobody is doing squat. The Dems are toothless. Authoritarianism 101.
And MAGA loyalists love it. Let Rome burn - screw these folks.
"The memo states its orders should not be “construed” to impact Social Security or Medicare recipients, and also says the federal financial assistance put on hold “does not include assistance provided directly to individuals.”"
”Never mind … “ (SNL)