jross

Be offended!

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jun/13/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-canadas-2/ Canada tariffs fact check true

look at page 3-4 for dairy and poultry.

THIS IS EXACTLY HOW it felt to the silent majority from 2015 to 2021.

Your concern is important but misplaced. Controlling the language in federal government documents doesn't amount to the public suppression you see in authoritarian countries like Russia, North Korea, or China, where people might literally vanish for speaking out. Comparing ICE's policing of criminal aliens against policing government document word choice is inaccurate.

Trump has overlapping personnel that contributed to project 2025, and this section on vocabulary is an implicit extension of Trump's formally declared Agenda 47 agenda. Recall that Agenda 47 says AND Trump explicitly disagreed with parts of project 2025. Abortion was the big topic of disagreement, with Trump advocating for arguments at the state level rather than Federal level. So you are going to see parts but not all of project 2025 included.

...SO FAR SO GOOD!

I love that this crew is trying something different from the existing path towards an obscene increase in citizen taxes and governmental control. What is the worst that can happen if this crew fails? A recession? And then the reverts back to the previous policies? What if its successful?

Example of Canada's Tariffs on U.S. Goods existing before Trump presidency... Milk: Up to 270% Cheese: Up to 245% Butter: Up to 300% Poultry: Up to 300%. Canada was being "unfair" on agriculture... Mexico has preexisting tariffs as well... Some countries will back down and some will not. I trust those using leverage in the trade wars to have better outcomes than we start with. Canada and Mexico cannot compete well with us. Picking the wrong areas against too many or the wrong country can get us in trouble globally; it has before. What specific legal mechanisms do U.S. presidents use to impose tariffs, and how have these authorities been applied under laws like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)?

Let's call a tariff what it is: "economic hate speech." Henceforward we'll refer to it as "Trade Adjustment Fee."

What are the facts in the article that support whatever point is being made.

Don't judge a book by its cover... oh snap! https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/deep-neural-networks-are-more-accurate-humans-detecting-sexual Given a single facial image, a classifier could correctly distinguish between gay and heterosexual men in 81% of cases, and in 74% of cases for women. Human judges achieved much lower accuracy: 61% for men and 54% for women. The accuracy of the algorithm increased to 91% and 83%, respectively, given five facial images per person. Facial features employed by the classifier included both fixed (e.g., nose shape) and transient facial features (e.g., grooming style). Consistent with the prenatal hormone theory of sexual orientation, gay men and women tended to have gender-atypical facial morphology, expression, and grooming styles.

For what reason would "he" refrain from this, even when he openly disagrees? It's self preservation from next actions from the misinformed mob.

People are too sensitive to words. I'm not bothered by by words when they accurately describe someone; what sometimes upsets me is when they're used maliciously without justification. When I think of "faggot,", I think of a gay man who expresses himself like a woman and prefers clothing that aligns with female fashion. The least amount of words I could use are "Feminine gay men." None of the words here seems inaccurate or malicious to me, rather they are descriptive. That Atlantic article uses an example "i don't know why but i think it looks so gay when guys drink star bucks lol." Without intonation, this is an observant opinion. Without context, given one man drinks a sugary fufu drink and another drinks a black Pike, no sugar... one man is drinking what is largely observable as what women drink. This is not indicating the man is worthy of ridicule. If you call me an asshole, and I am acting like an asshole, that is a fair word choice. Believe it or not, gender norms have positive traits. I don't care if you lilies disagree because "words have baggage." It is rather silly to me that we cannot say words because some people think they are harmful. I won't say them because I need to get along with society, but society is weak...

What makes the AFD group an overall extremist party?

RFK JR has one thing right. Obesity is the number one health threat to Americans.

My boy has grown like 5 inches in the past year. Let me show you how tall he is. Ugh. I just did the Nazi salute.

Since mathematical angles are not enough fun, here is my software engineering approach... Ruby... if elon.is_nazi() elon.perform_nazi_salute = true else elon.perform_nazi_salute = false end SQL... SELECT CASE WHEN isNazi = 1 THEN 'TRUE' ELSE 'FALSE' END AS PerformNaziSalute FROM People WHERE name = 'Elon'

Your perception is not Elon's intention. Your perceptions speaks more about your worldview than Elon's.

Join me in my engineering love for this autistic analysis.

Et tu? (the Middle Eastern version) Because intent matters. Warning Labels are needed indeed.

Every single person alive that said Musk did a Nazi salute is the reason we have warning labels on everything.

To my research, short term implies immediacy for less than 14 days and expedited for less than 2 years. There is no standard statute of limitations for deportation. But after 10 years, the Attorney General may cancel removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien- (A) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application; (B) has been a person of good moral character during such period; (C) has not been convicted of an offense under section 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3) of this title, subject to paragraph (5); and (D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1229b&num=0&edition=prelim Note: there are other exceptions...

What about spending in 2023 or 2024 has evidence to money earmarked for 2025? I'm not seeing it in the article. I agree with the speculation that its likely one of many line items for money to Gaza, or misinformation in some other manner. Those in charge now should show their sources or correct their information.

I'm responding to this. I'm not attempting to shift anyone's conversation or narrative with my last comment. I don't want to hear people deflect from the context of criminal illegal entry with callouts to the difference between a visa overstay and illegal entry. I'm satisfied with the transparency on deporting illegal aliens. I like how the government is communicating their priority and progress. First: Violent Criminals and Threats to National Security Second: Recently Arrived Illegal Crossers Third: Visa Overstays and Other Immigration Violators With collateral enforcement across for violators encountered. ---- I 100% support legal immigration and streamlining it. If I'm king and you are already in the country illegally, your current immigration request is auto declined. Go to the backend of the legal request line, and remain outside of the USA while you do. I know there are exceptions to this... grey areas... but its largely black and white and is effectively being addressed in broad strokes.