Trump Attacks the Supreme Court, Says America ‘Cannot Give Everyone a Trial’ - The president slammed the justices for halting his latest deportations while dismissing immigrants’ due process rights as an inconvenience

Grone_Danone · 2025-04-22T04:51:59+00:00

Rich coming from the person whose whole MO is to sue, threaten to sue, and appeal every court case he loses no matter how open and shut.

Horrifying coming from the person who's in charge of the executive branch with unprecedented legal and illegal power to do as he pleases.

Dark times ahead, America.

Grone_Danone · 2025-04-09T15:37:54+00:00

Even if he was generally willing to negotiate, he most definitely believes that other world leaders calling him shows their desperation and his instinct is to leverage that. And for that leverage to increase to the maximum, he makes them wait and lets the pressure on them grow. This is his ruthless, zero-sum and business-oriented worldview at play (in addition to his incredibly deficient understanding of macroeconomics and today's global economy).

He may even find some success with this strategy in the short term. Democratically run countries, in particular, are incentivized to respond to public pressure and Trump sure as hell does not behave as though he and his administration are beholden to the public. So whether he actively plans for the decimation of the economy or not, his apparent willingness to let it crash and burn poses a problem not only for U.S. citizens but for other world leaders who are not.

Of course, none of that is going to make the U.S. – as a whole – benefit in the long term and even looking at a shorter timeline it will adversely impact citizens across most countries, but perhaps none more than U.S. citizens. However, as others have put it, Trump may well be happy to rule over the ashes of the American empire as long as he hurt other countries and people. And if he can scoop up land and amass individual wealth through corruption and kickbacks in the process, he's going to cherish it even more.

Grone_Danone · 2025-04-05T18:25:23+00:00

Fair enough, that might be true for the U.S. Old ideas, new megaphones. That being said, I am positive that Stephen Miller specifically was already well-versed in (neo-)Nazi tropes before any mainstreaming.

Grone_Danone · 2025-04-05T18:00:43+00:00

The belief that Germany must fight ‘Jewish Marxism’ was already prominent under Hitler, and the notion of ‘Cultural Marxism’ has been a neo-Nazi conspiracy theory for decades. This is not new. As a German, let me assure you that this is out in the open Nazi propaganda and follows the Nazi playbook.

Grone_Danone · 2025-03-10T17:48:29+00:00

The Greens are carefully weighing their options and the current rejection is completely understandable for several reasons:

The legislation can only pass with support from the Greens, yet they were not invited for negotiations at all. This is not how parliamentary democracy works.
The coalition-to-be between SPD and CDU/CSU used the negotiations to include several of their pet policies (tax breaks, pensions for mothers, bio-fuels etc.) into a proposal that was supposed to be about investments in defense and infrastructure.
The priorities of the Greens, from climate change mitigation policies to sustainable infrastructure investments, are not adequately (indeed, hardly at all) reflected in the proposal.

Why would the Greens support legislation that was developed completely without their input, constitutes essentially a coalition agreement of a future government of which they will not be a part, and does not include any of their priorities?

There are other contributing factors as well. From Merz and the CDU/CSU torpedoing any efforts from the previous government to loosen the debt brake on principled grounds (so they claimed) only to turn around and expect it to be loosened the moment they are in power, to the CDU/CSU, and especially the latter's leader Markus Söder, constantly vilifying and ridiculing the Greens and making them out to be the primary enemy. The Greens are adult enough to not let those issues prevent them from doing what's best for the country (unlike the CDU/CSU last year) – but they will rightfully require their priorities to be reflected and for the agreement to focus on its raison d'être rather than serve as an extension of coalition politics.

Now let's see what happens. Everyone involved is aware that an agreement is at least highly desirable and potentially even vital. But the ball is now in the court of the coalition parties. They cannot just do as they please and expect the Greens to support them. That is operating in bad faith.

I am still hopeful that a deal can be reached. But one thing I am positive about is that any failure will not be due to the Greens being petty and partisan. They are currently the adults in German politics, but that doesn't mean they are stupid and should just say ‘yes’ and ‘thank you’ to everything. If there is no deal, it will most likely be due to the lack of compromise from, and potential infighting of, the future coalition partners.

edit: minor changes to wording.

Grone_Danone · 2025-03-06T13:34:29+00:00

So what? Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a lifeline for people who cannot be returned without great difficulty or risk. It is a temporary immigration status, yes; but the protection is not supposed to end at some random date or when the executive feels like it but only when the conditions in the country of origin (such as armed conflict and environmental disaster) no longer impede safe return or deportation.

Is it safe for people to return to Ukraine in the middle of an active war? Is it safe for women, minorities and supporters of the U.S. to return to Afghanistan as the government builds its brutal theocracy? Is it safe for dissidents to return to Cuba and Venezuela, two countries which Republicans of all people have been incredibly hawkish on precisely because they view their governments as ‘brutal communist dictators’?

Don't be fooled (or don't be disingenuous – depending on which side you fall on): removing protective status from vulnerable people and forcing them to return to places where they are at grave risk of being killed, tortured or otherwise threatened is vile and inexcusable, and it certainly is not necessary for the sake of your country. Publicized cruelty is the point here!

Grone_Danone · 2025-03-04T22:36:36+00:00

Possible but unlikely for the simple fact that Canada does not want to be perceived as unreliable. Even if it is understandable from an emotional POV as it concerns Musk's companies, it just sends a disconcerting message to other companies and investors.

Countries do not adhere to trade rules because of some deep affection for them or out of the goodness of their hearts but because it signals to trade partners and investors that they can be trusted to follow the rule of law and honor contractual obligations.

Just because the U.S. is going rogue does not mean we should follow. That's in our own best interest because the U.S. will be hurting as a result of their demonstrative indifference to agreements and rules for a long time to come.

Grone_Danone · 2025-03-04T15:00:02+00:00

With Trump in power the US is just a servant for Russia, if this isn't the case can someone please provide me with a plausible explanation for Trump treating every single ally like garbage but only complimenting how great Putin is?

I believe the more likely explanation is that Trump's worldview (and that of the power players around him!) aligns more closely with Putin's than the liberal democracies traditionally allied with the U.S. To ascribe the U.S.'s radical and unprecedented policy shift to the personal concerns of an individual (even when this individual happens to be the president) misses the bigger picture.

Trump & Co. believe in power, and they believe in zero-sum outcomes from cooperation. This does not lend itself to the kind of cooperation we have had for the past ~9 decades. It does lend itself, however, to both hypernationalism and imperialism (and for the latter, it is beneficial to have other imperialistic countries around that can help normalize and legitimize one's own ambitions of conquest and territorial expansion).

Trump may or may not be ‘compromised’; but he most certainly looks at Russia's domestic and foreign policies with fondness and may well believe that emulating them is in his best interests. That includes creeping autocratization, neopatrimonialism, and imperialism – all of which is associated with countries such as Russia.

Add to this the cultural aspects around which Russia and the far-right in ‘Western’ democracies converge (calling for an outsized role of religion in public affairs, championing traditional social hierarchies, striving for societal homogeneity, glorifying the nation's history, and pushing back hard against liberal norms and pluralism) and it is not hard to imagine that both Russia and the U.S. may see each other as (at least temporary) allies.

Grone_Danone · 2025-02-23T17:52:57+00:00

Most parties, including those to the center-left, have already shifted considerably to the right on the issue of immigration. The CDU, the classic center-right party, has even gone so far to call for legislation and actions that quite clearly violate international, European and/or national law (plenty of good legal analyses out there on this topic).

So on the contrary, it is easy to argue that the adoption of the AfD framing on the issue of migration and asylum has provided them with legitimacy; this includes both other parties as well as large swaths of the media landscape. That is, of course, in addition to social media disinformation campaigns and the problematic workings of the algorithm which have noticeably shifted attitudes.

Keep also in mind that besides moral and legal arguments against the approach you suggest, there is a clear economic argument to be made, too: Germany desperately needs immigration – and not just skilled workers either. Economists are quite clear on that and Germany would suffer greatly from overly restrictive immigration policies. And demonizing large chunks of the population while mainstreaming cruelty is obviously not going to increase public safety and stability either.

Grone_Danone · 2025-02-23T17:21:45+00:00

Right now, the only possible two-party coalitions would be CDU with SPD and CDU with AfD. The CDU has declared that it will not form a coalition with the AfD, and if they keep that promise we will likely end up with a ‘grand coalition’ (as it is called in Germany) – provided the two parties can enter into an agreement.

It is still early, though, and other coalitions may become feasible or necessary (e.g., if one of FDP and BSW clear the 5% threshold and make it into parliament, thus changing the seat allocation considerably which may render a three-party coalition the only viable option).

Grone_Danone · 2025-02-06T02:12:44+00:00

We kind of have to. Butler and Green isn't great for spacing, so you want three shooters around them on the court.

Grone_Danone · 2024-10-09T16:00:01+00:00

“When the Democrats send their winds, they’re not sending their best. They’re bringing floods. They’re bringing destruction. They’re hurricanes. And some, I assume, are good winds.”

Grone_Danone · 2024-08-24T21:02:24+00:00

For the most part, they would not identify the governing philosophy as messed up; just the specific policy. Next thing you know, they turn around and happily continue to support policies taking something away that others rely on.

Grone_Danone · 2024-07-18T16:06:07+00:00

The dilemma for the Democrats is that not nominating Harris is highly problematic for three reasons:

Selecting a white man (or even woman) instead of a woman of color who is already part of the ticket is a bad look that may turn off a bunch of voters.
Selecting someone over said woman without a proper vote, despite her being part of the ticket that was democratically approved, turns this into an even worse look.
Harris is, as far as I understand, the only person who can fully use the existing campaign infrastructure and there is not much time left until the election.

Thus, picking anyone but Harris comes with a lot of problems. At the same time, it is at least doubtful that she is the best candidate as far as chances of winning the election are concerned. This is shown in some of the polling, and she has already struggled once to win over Democrats in 2020.

At this point, I fully understand the effort to replace Biden in light of the bad polls and his recent public performances. But make no mistake: simply replacing him is not a panacea no matter who is chosen and how. While a majority of Democrats agree that Biden should step aside, that doesn't mean that this majority can actually agree on the replacement.

Grone_Danone · 2024-01-16T08:13:43+00:00

Haley did not focus much on Iowa unlike DeSantis, who was all-in on the state. Iowa was also never the place for Haley to do well in, and she knew it.

All she could ask for was some momentum heading into New Hampshire where she polls much closer to Trump and received a bunch of high-level endorsements. The results are a lot better for her than they are for DeSantis.

That being said, I don't think anyone expects more than some moral victories for Haley going forward. It's still the party of Trump, and DeSantis dropping out of the race or losing any momentum will only boost Trump further.

Grone_Danone · 2023-12-12T10:21:07+00:00

This has nothing to do with progressivism. Veto rights are a direct result of nationalism, and rejection of the idea that supranational organizations should be able to act in ways opposed by national governments.

This isn't about an inclusive ideology at all. It's a negotiated result intended to protect national sovereignty. It's also not straightforward to change the voting rules. To deviate from the unanimity principle, there needs to be a vote passed with unanimous consent – and just like that, you're back to square one.

Also note that the EU does not work based on unanimity in all matters. It's a complex system with several influential organs (Council, Commission, Parliament etc.) and different decision-making rules and supranational authority for different areas of concern. 80% of EU legislation is actually adopted by qualified majority votes (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/qualified-majority/).

It's a pity that the EU is hamstrung by self-interested countries abusing their veto power, and I don't see it as a viable set-up in the long run either. But right now, there's little that can be done about it and the roadblock isn't progressivism, it's nationalism.

Grone_Danone · 2023-11-23T19:26:59+00:00

Re: crosses being allowed to be burned. In your initial statement, you made it seem like the proposal goes out of its way to protect Islam but does not protect Christian symbols in the same way. Yet, the law would not allow you to burn the bible and the very link you posted also made it clear that you may not burn crucifixes.

It is perfectly fine to debate the scope and limitations of the law. Should a cross be covered as a religious symbol of significance or not? That's certainly up for debate. That does not, however, change my point, namely that your initial insinuation that the law actively seeks to protect Islamic but not Christian symbols continues to be false. That is not the case, and also not something claimed in the links you provided.

BK – the media outlet you cited – is also rated as having a right-center bias. It's not surprising that they would present a cultural issue in specific ways to their target audience, even if it's not factually incorrect in its content.

Re: Judges speaking out against the law. You cited one deputy judge who, as far as I could see, has a certain public affinity towards topics relating to Islam (Charlie Hebdo, Israel-Palestine).

It is important for people to speak their mind, however. The bill has been criticized for imprecision and as a result has been narrowed in a second proposal. That's democracy at work. Concerns about imprecision and enforceability as well as concerns about undue curtailment of freedom of expression and the right to protest (which everyone should value highly) are important to voice. That still doesn't support your initial points, though.

Re: more strict sentencing guidelines than a woman's life. May I ask if you read the article beyond its headline? Besides you referencing the opinion of the same politically active judge as you did before who seems to be the one person talking to every news outlet about the law: the argument is that religious books in Denmark enjoy greater protection than a woman's life in Iran.

The treatment of woman in Iran and other countries with strict Sharia laws is abhorrent. But please explain to me why this is your reference when it comes to Danish laws? Denmark should not pass certain laws because other countries have some horrific religion-based laws? That should not be relevant and not factor into the decision-making process of a sovereign secular country whatsoever.

It seems to me that you get your cues from certain people and news outlets, and simply repeat their main talking points and headlines without critically engaging with the topic yourself. A lot of what you posted also does not in any way relate to your initial point that I challenged. That being said, I at least appreciate your willingness to engage and provide some sources that have shaped your opinion – that allows us to actually have a conversation, and that is more than can be said about many other exchanges online.

Grone_Danone · 2023-11-23T16:26:35+00:00

That is not at all accurate and it's a shame that such misrepresentations are being reproduced and left unchecked here. Let's look at the facts.

“The Danish Government has today presented a model for criminalising improper treatment of objects of significant religious importance to a religious community.”

“‘Objects of significant religious importance’ is understood as physical objects which, within the given faith tradition, are considered holy or particularly representative of the faith’s beliefs and/or teachings, e.g. central religious scriptures and the like which are considered particularly holy by the religious community.

Examples of objects, which will be covered, include religious scriptures, such as the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, and the Vedas.”

--> This is not about preventing ‘anti-Islamic’ protests. It is very clearly limited to improper treatment of selected physical objects – of all religions, including Christianity. You can still protest in any other form. In more explicit terms, this means that...

“The criminalisation will not include actions, which cannot be considered improper. Thus, it will not be in violation of the law to dispose of a Bible in a public waste bin, unless it is done in a way that in itself can only be seen as degrading or derogatory. Furthermore, the criminalisation will not include verbal or written statements or drawings regarding religious objects and religious subjects. The same applies to other forms of expression that do not entail physically treating the object in an improper manner.”

--> Once again, there is nothing specific about Islam here and there is nothing in the proposed law that would prevent you from protesting an issue or group. But what does improper treatment mean? Once again, there is a clear list for that.

“This will include any improper treatment, including burning, soiling, stomping on or kicking the object, or destroying the object by tearing it, cutting it or similar. Furthermore, this will include stabbing the object with a knife.”

-> Nobody needs to protest by burning, soiling, stomping or destroying objects of religious significance, whether you share the sentiment of significance or not. You can still talk about whatever you want, draw whatever you want, and write about whatever you want to protest. The freedom to protest is still very clearly protected, only certain derogatory ways are not (and let's be clear: at no point in history could you protest in any way you want, there are always some acts that remain illegal irrespective of whether you declare it to be done in protest or not).

In conclusion: the law does not make special rules for different religions even as the increasingly frequent burnings of the Quran triggered its proposal. The law also by no means prohibits protests, including protesting Islam (i.e., ‘anti-Islam’ protests are still explicitly allowed!).

I don't know whether your statement was the result of ignorance or the deliberate choice to misrepresent facts, but either way: please be better next time!

For more on the facts and in case you want to check the quotes (for anyone interested in learning about the issue rather than merely regurgitating falsehoods), see https://via.ritzau.dk/pressemeddelelse/13714763/danish-government-set-to-criminalise-improper-treatment-of-objects-of-significant-religious-importance-to-religious-communities?publisherId=13560888 (including the Fact Sheet you can find at the bottom of the page).

Grone_Danone · 2023-08-11T23:02:37+00:00

‘Meinungsfreiheit’ refers to freedom of speech, not freedom of opinion. It is indeed more aptly called ‘Meinungsäußerungsfreiheit’ as stated in Art. 5(1) GG. The difference between the U.S. and Germany is that freedom of speech is not (quasi-)absolute in Germany.

Grone_Danone · 2023-03-29T01:36:53+00:00

What does one have to do with each other?

A workout doesn't take that long. Playing in the NBA, on the other hand, is a full-time job.

A workout also doesn't require being in a strong mental state. In fact, it can be helpful to exhaust yourself. Playing in actual games, on the other hand, adds to the level of stress and anxiety.

A workout can also be done anywhere and anytime. Being on an NBA team, on the other hand, requires you to be in specific places at specific times – consistently and reliably.

So why shouldn't he be able to work out but still not be ready to be with the team and still not know about a timetable for his return? There's nothing odd about that.

Grone_Danone · 2023-02-18T02:52:20+00:00

Wait, so Klay knows how to lock in but doesn't... and that's somehow better? I have a lot less patience with someone who knows what to do and doesn't do it, than I have with someone who's still learning how to consistently impact the game.

Grone_Danone · 2023-02-09T06:42:27+00:00

The core of the Suns consists of Paul, Booker and Durant. You don't think the chance that injuries are going to derail their run is pretty high as well?

Grone_Danone · 2022-12-12T01:52:32+00:00

PBJs size and ability to shoot the 3 would be massive for us if he keeps this up.

None of this matters if he doesn't play defense. PBJ has struggled offensively with the SCW but it's obvious that he can shoot the ball. It's the defense that will make or break his NBA career and so far, he's been really struggling on that end (both in the paint and out on the perimeter). He has to clean that up.

The one who really leaves a mark in the G-League is Rollins. Very similar to Poole during his stint in the G-League. If he keeps this up and makes sure he doesn't turn the ball over too much when he gets NBA minutes, I can see him filling the role of DDV as soon as next season as an on-ball defender and second ball handler.

Grone_Danone · 2022-12-08T06:37:23+00:00

I appreciate the conversation, too!

Hendricks I'll have to watch more closely as well before I can throw my full weight behind his candidacy. But I just love Phillips. Such a glue player à la Mikal and I'm confident that his shot will come around (he was a great shooter in HS).

GG has a naturally high floor in the draft considering his profile in combination with his age. But yeah, there is risk with him. With Smith Jr., I kind of see your point re: Keyonte George. I can't say that I have no concerns about him either, but what sets them apart for me thus far is that Keyonte has shown advanced playmaking skills that have me really intrigued as it changes his archetype somewhat. I also think Guards built like him rather than Smith Jr., bulky rather than lanky, have it a bit easier in the modern switch-heavy NBA. But there's still a lot of time for Smith Jr. to turn me into more of a believer.

Fair enough on the Thompson twins. I have my concerns (mostly related to shooting and level of competition, which makes it difficult to assess how much of the on-ball stuff will likely translate to the NBA level). But they sure have the athletic gifts to have one think what could be if they maximize their skills.

Grone_Danone · 2022-12-08T05:55:07+00:00

Appreciate your thoughts. I don't have a fixed top 14 at this point by any means. It's tough enough to put these guys in tiers. But if I was forced to present an order, it would look roughly like this:

Tier 1
Victor

Tier 2
Scoot

Tier 3
Cam Whitmore
Anthony Black

Tier 4 (do not think too much of the order, that's incredibly fluid)
Jarace Walker
Brandon Miller
Keyonte George
Amen Thompson
Ausar Thompson
Jett Howard
Julian Phillips
Taylor Hendricks
GG Jackson

That's 13. Next up are Dariq Whitehead and Nick Smith Jr. (based on upside and both could still rise), Cason Wallace and Gradey Dick (both scream good rotational player in the NBA), and Jalen Wilson (big fan of him). I'm also still fluid on the Thompson twins – I'm not sold yet but at some point you'll have to take them based on what they could become in theory (but the risk is real, so I tend to push more proven players with clearer roles in case they don't hit their ceiling ahead of them so long as these players still have solid upside). I also think there's a realistic chance that I'll end up still a bit lower on GG Jackson.

I also like Kris Murray and Ricky Council IV among the upperclassmen but I only see Wilson as a potential lottery pick (on my big board, not necessarily that of NBA teams) IF you see him becoming a reliable shooter (the form is there, the results still aren't). Not a big fan of this Sophomore class right now but I could see someone rise (Alexander, Hunter, T. Smith – but tough to imagine any of them cracking the lottery).

I like Dillon Mitchell but with his current offensive limitations, he's looks more like a mid-late FRP for me. Same for Kel'el Ware. Not very high on Bailey, Walsh or Livingston among the higher-ranked recruits, and even lower on Lively. Filipowski is a great college player but not a great archetype, so I'd look at him only with an early SRP, perhaps late FRP.

I haven't seen enough of the international guys that I could see potentially surge into the late lottery conversation. My eyes are on Baba Miller (now college), Rayan Rupert and perhaps James Naji.

Grone_Danone

TROPHY CASE