And most recently, the people who engaged in a deliberate scheme to overturn a lawful election, all on the right. And I am talking not just about the J6 rioters, although they most certainly are included.
I note this also. The number of examples of actual election fraud (voting dead peoples mail in ballots, etc.) is microscopic. BUT, the vast majority of those have been people on the right....
Trump wants state and local cooperation in rounding up the illegal aliens, especially those convicted or charged with serious crimes. Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law.
Seriously? I doubt you will find a single official, in any sanctuary city or county or state, who would have any problem at all at all with those convicted of serious crimes being picked up and deported. What they object to, and actively resist, are armed (and untrained) thugs rampaging around their population.
They might not be enthused about rounding up people who had committed no crime beyond coming here illegally. But that's not what's happening. People who are here legally, who have followed the law to the letter, are being grabbed, roughed up, and deported -- deported to, be it noted, countries other than the one they are from, even half way around the world.
For that matter US citizens are getting picked up, shackled,, and hauled across the country for interrogation (without any chance for the legal representation they are entitled to). And then left to get home at their own expense.**
In short, any claim that Trump (or Miller or Noem) has the least interest in legal status is simply not supported by the facts.
As for defunding ICE, at this point I'm not seeing anything less which will work. ICE is basically going to have to be cleared out completely and rebuilt from scratch. There are sure to be some few longstanding employees who should then be rehired. Some. But anyone hired in the last year should never work there again. (And, IMHO, never work in anything resembling law enforcement at any level ever again. All the way down to private security.)
** Far more than the number (citizens and non-citizens alike) who have simply been murdered.
That is asking Trump to deploy the military for immigration enforcement without actually asking him, IMO. Or is that the point? Push escalation until the revolution?
Forgive me for being unable to understand. What do you see being accomplished by giving Trump what he asks for? How often is appeasement a successful strategy for dealing with a bully?
To expand on what russell said: absolutely slash DHS (or, at minimum, ICE) funding. The administration may invent some way around that, and spend the money anyway. But if the funding isn't cut, they will definitely spend it.
So it's a chance (whether large or tiny) of accomplishing something vs no chance at all. Easy choice.
I can't see anyone in this administration as Philoctetes, Hercules, or Odysseus. All of whom had, besides their tragic flaws, great and noble characteristics. That's what makes them "tragic heroes".
i certainly see the self-pity, and the enthusiasm to "repeat their every last mistake." But anything at all that would qualify as admirable? If someone like that snuck into this administration, she's keeping an incredibly low profile. (Probably, admittedly, as a matter of self preservation.) But it seems far more likely that anyone like that has walked away long since.
Actually it's a wonder that so many Trump-appointed judges keep stepping up and ruling against him. Perhaps the Federalist Society's vetting is less robust that they thought....
And no, I don’t think America is headed toward anything like a Rome-style collapse. Our institutions are too strong, and our people, deep down, still have the same democratic values.
It seems clear that he has missed a couple of relevant details:
1) several decades of diligent work by the Federalist Society have produced a court system, now including the Supreme Court, which is no longer a reliable strong defender of those democratic values. With a bit of venue shopping, it's often possible to get a judge who is an ideologue rather than a jurist. When that's not possible, the majority on the Supreme Court is -- the main check there being that they can only hear a limited number of cases, so some precedents guarding democracy remain. For now.
2) turns out the Congress depended on tradition and good faith on the part of its members in order to function reliably. Gingrich started chipping away at that, and McConnell raised bad faith to a high art. At this point, one has to search really hard to find a Republican Congressman who shows signs of having ever heard of good faith. Or has something resembling a backbone; at least until their reelection is seriously threatened.
3) a lot of the institutions in the Executive Branch were staffed by people who are actually experts in their field. The Civil Service Act protected them from politics, so they could do their jobs. But thru a variety of ploys, the Civil Service Act has been neutered for those who will not knuckle under to the ideologues placed at the top.
In short, on the national level, those institutions are far less robust than we thought they were. The state and local levels are still solid, at least in the places most of us live. But their ablility to resist Federal overreach is limited, especially when it entails use of the court system.
As for our people, we always knew we had those among us who disliked democracy -- at least when the results were not perfectly aligned with their views of the moment. But there are rather more than we thought. Worse, there are way too many who simply can't (or at least couldn't) believe anyone would be elected and then trash the system. They are learning ("Hey, I didn't mean you coud do that here!"), but whether it will be soon enough remains to be seen.
We may yet avoid a Rome-style collapse.** But it will be a near run thing.
** Domestically. In international relations that ship has sailed. And won't return, at the earliest, until everyone in the world currently past their teens has not just passed from the scene but died.
I keep thinking of it as Trump's Bored of Peace. Because he certainly does seem to be. Who needs peace, as long as he's got a supply of "losers" (whether ICE thugs or the US military) to do the fighting and dying for him.
Well, this administration had already gotten our (pretty nearly all ex- by this point) allies to stops sharing some info. Just because they can't be trusted. If Patel publishes this, expect them all to just walk away. US satellite intel will take time to replace, so they may keep up with restrictions on which of their people can talk to us. But even that will be just a limited, temporary expedient.
After all, it's about intelligence. And for this administration, intelligence seems to be generally anathema.
It's just that they are constrained by the fact that the truth never seems to fit with their needs or desires. So the only way to maintain their (and, at least for the grifters, more impirtantly) and their dupes "alternate reality" is to lie. Doctoring evidence being just one of many techniques for that.
Over half a century ago, Robert Heinlein's "Future History" included a period where the United States was in the grip of a totalitarian theocracy. Sadly, the only part he seems to have missed was that it is not (yet) religion based. At least as far as its initial leader is concerned.** Sadly, the only question yet to be answered is how the succession will be determined.
I realize that, as the resident optimist, I should be talking about how we will bounce back once Trump leaves the scene. Certainly I hope that happens. But it's increasingly difficult to expect it. Alas, Carney is probably correct about where the world goes from here.
** Well, he also predicted the US would be totally isolationist (as in cutting off all interaction with the rest of the world) throughout this. The rest of the world, at this point, probably hopes it works out that way. And sooner rather than later.
GftNC -- he has enriched himself to the tune of $1.5 billion. Wow, brazen corruption in full view. It’s almost funny after the accusations about the Biden Crime Family:
Well, it's been true since the beginning of his first campaign for President that every accusation he made was actually a confession. This is just a small addition to an enormous pile. He simply cannot imagine that anyone would fail to exploit anyone and anything they could, just like he does.
lj -- I’m not sure how much we can bang that drum to indicate our inherent goodness. The fact that he was the first nominated (by a major political party) and went directly on to being elected makes him seem more like an outlier than a true indicator.
I'm not arguing for inherent goodness. Just that we've gotten better. Or less bad, if you prefer.
As for Obama being an outlier, I wouldn't dispute that. He's definitely an exceptionally gifted politician. I'd say the most gifted in my lifetime. But within (my) living memory, no black man, no matter how gifted, could have done what he did. Or even gotten within a thousand miles of getting the opportunity to try. That's a solid indication of progress. IMHO, of course.
russell -- I’d like to think we have somehow moved past the white supremacist legacy of our history, but I don’t think we have. I’m not sure if it’s a matter of re-remembering, I don’t think it ever went away. Trump just gives it permission to come back out in the light of day.
I think that, as a nation, we are in the process of moving past it. I say "as a nation" because, while I think that more and more of us have moved past it, clearly there are still a huge number who have not. A huge but decreasing number, which is why I say "in the process." Still huge, but decreasing -- not just as a portion of the population, but as a portion of the white population. That's what has people like Miller frantic.
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. "Inconceivable" is the word.
nous -- I do worry, however, that this simplification might obscure the degree to which economics and safety are entangled with climate.
Certainly true.
But at this point, we can do something about economics and safety relatively quickly. Not solve them completely by any means, but visibly start making progress. Having solid reasons to hope and expect things will get better, because they are already visibly improving -- that puts a big weight on the side of "I think I'll just stay where I am and work on doing better here." Most people don't like the idea of up and moving to an unfamiliar place, especially one with a different language and a different culture. Give them a reason to avoid it, and mostly they will.
Climate change, on the other hand, is something where we can, at most mitigate some of the damage. But, no matter what we do, it will continue to get worse before it gets better. We can manage "get worse more slowly" and "not get as much worse". But that's the most we can do at this point.
This is by no means to suggest we not make heroic efforts regarding climate change. Just to say, when it comes to immigration, that's not going to be part of the solution (supposing that we need one). Economics and safety will. And addressing those is the right thing to do, regardless of your views on immigration.
Suppose (strictly for the sake of discussion!) that we're being reasonable when worrying about immigration**. (This addresses, but does not require, the Great Replacement Theory.) What's the most effective, the most cost-effective, (not to mention the most humane, because that's apparently of no importance to those worried about immigration) approach?
Answering that requires answering the motivation question: Why do they come? The simple answer: economics and safety. Not macroeconomic generalities, but the microeconomics of individuals. Combined with, and overlapping with, the legal environment. There are other motivations, such as moving to be near family members, or even climate. But those are tiny in comparison.
So, the obvious solution to the assumed problem, is to reduce the motivation. If there are abundant economic opportunities for individuals where they are, most people will not take on the emotional and financial cost to emigrating; basically, they'll stay home. If they can live without fear, of criminal, governmental, or other attacks, people will mostly stay home. TL;DR: remove, or even seriously reduce, the motivation, and your assumed immigration problem goes away.
So, the blindingly obvious answer has two parts: 1) improve the economies of the places your immigrants are coming from. 2) improve the governance, specifically the rule of law, of the places your unwanted immigrants are coming from. Reducing to push to move.
Are we doing anything like that? Not any more.
What we do seem to be doing instead is addressing those issues by trashing our own economy, and simultaneously trashing the rule of law. Removing the attraction. It is, after all, the difference in those which provides the motivation.
If I'm understanding correctly, one big advantage is that this "spends the money here, not elsewhere." At least in the economically ignorant view to those driving it. It's bad for us, too, but either they can't see that or they just assume it won't impact them personally.
Oh, yes. The other motivation for immigration, in some cases, is that other places are just too crowded. If you improve the economy, somewhere population growth drops, or even disappears altogether. We've seen that extremely consistently. When people get richer, they tend on average to have fewer children. Another reason to improve economies elsewhere.
** Immigration has been an enormous economic boon to this country. The people already here have consistently objected to whichever group is perceived as comprising the current bulk of the immigrants. But those immigrants built the country even so. Both physically and economically. Still do.
Geography nerds' quiz: Part of Alaska (the panhandle, including the state capital) is not an island, but can only be reached by car by driving thru another country. What other state includes that feature?
First impression: Fascinating that Japan is grouped with North Korea as well as South. But Thailand? Where did that come from?
OK, I look at the key and get a glimmer. But it still seems pretty daft. Just for openers, it utterly ignores the realities of anything but current national boundaries.
For example, Tibet was never colonized, controlled, or influenced by Europe. And not part of China until well after European influence was being eradicated in the PRC. For that matter, all of Russia** east of the Urals should be "colonized by Europe", not part of Europe. Just like the Stans in central Asia.
** For that matter, a case could be made that even European Russia qualifies as "partial European influence" -- the cultural differences from the rest of Europe are pretty stark.
Charles was actually agreeing with you. If these thugs were real law enforcement, they would routinely wear body cams. (Which, be it noted, are also real useful if there's an actual court case to be made in these situations.). The reason they weren't wearing them is that they are nothing like real law enforcement.
That timing of the snatch happening just after meeting with the Chinese has been taken by some as a warning to China, and it is difficult to imagine that the US didn’t know Maduro’s schedule, however, I would have expected Trump to crow about it in some way, so maybe it was dumb luck?
I would expect that, if the timing was dumb luck, Trump would be crowing like it was his brilliant planning. Neither do I think it likely it was a warning -- that would be a level of subtlety the current administration seems incapable of.
I think a more likely possibility is that it was carefully timed out of (absolutely never under any circumstances to be admitted!) fear of the possible Chinese reaction. Trump might (probably did) warn his buddy Putin, so Russians would be moved out of harms' way. But, not having that kind of BFF relationship with Xi, what was left was careful timing.
as far as i can see, all there are are masked thugs doing thuggish things with the full backing of a gang of thuggish morons, who were elected by drooling wannabe thugs.
Certainly there is an enormous amount of that on the streets. But that behavior inevitable gets a lot more attention. Just as a riot which extends across a half dozen city blocks, in a city of several million, is all you will see on the news.
But consider the last time you arrived on an international flight. The guy doing customs inspections was also ICE (customs enforcement, right?). But, at least in my observation, those folks are courteous and polite to everybody, regardless of how they look or what their proficiency in English. If all of ICE was the thugs, I'd expect something less.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Moral insanity”
And most recently, the people who engaged in a deliberate scheme to overturn a lawful election, all on the right. And I am talking not just about the J6 rioters, although they most certainly are included.
I note this also. The number of examples of actual election fraud (voting dead peoples mail in ballots, etc.) is microscopic. BUT, the vast majority of those have been people on the right....
"
Trump wants state and local cooperation in rounding up the illegal aliens, especially those convicted or charged with serious crimes. Sanctuary cities/counties/states are actively resisting the enforcement of federal law.
Seriously? I doubt you will find a single official, in any sanctuary city or county or state, who would have any problem at all at all with those convicted of serious crimes being picked up and deported. What they object to, and actively resist, are armed (and untrained) thugs rampaging around their population.
They might not be enthused about rounding up people who had committed no crime beyond coming here illegally. But that's not what's happening. People who are here legally, who have followed the law to the letter, are being grabbed, roughed up, and deported -- deported to, be it noted, countries other than the one they are from, even half way around the world.
For that matter US citizens are getting picked up, shackled,, and hauled across the country for interrogation (without any chance for the legal representation they are entitled to). And then left to get home at their own expense.**
In short, any claim that Trump (or Miller or Noem) has the least interest in legal status is simply not supported by the facts.
As for defunding ICE, at this point I'm not seeing anything less which will work. ICE is basically going to have to be cleared out completely and rebuilt from scratch. There are sure to be some few longstanding employees who should then be rehired. Some. But anyone hired in the last year should never work there again. (And, IMHO, never work in anything resembling law enforcement at any level ever again. All the way down to private security.)
** Far more than the number (citizens and non-citizens alike) who have simply been murdered.
"
Forgive me for being unable to understand. What do you see being accomplished by giving Trump what he asks for? How often is appeasement a successful strategy for dealing with a bully?
"
To expand on what russell said: absolutely slash DHS (or, at minimum, ICE) funding. The administration may invent some way around that, and spend the money anyway. But if the funding isn't cut, they will definitely spend it.
So it's a chance (whether large or tiny) of accomplishing something vs no chance at all. Easy choice.
On “Feeling Philoctetes”
I can't see anyone in this administration as Philoctetes, Hercules, or Odysseus. All of whom had, besides their tragic flaws, great and noble characteristics. That's what makes them "tragic heroes".
i certainly see the self-pity, and the enthusiasm to "repeat their every last mistake." But anything at all that would qualify as admirable? If someone like that snuck into this administration, she's keeping an incredibly low profile. (Probably, admittedly, as a matter of self preservation.) But it seems far more likely that anyone like that has walked away long since.
Actually it's a wonder that so many Trump-appointed judges keep stepping up and ruling against him. Perhaps the Federalist Society's vetting is less robust that they thought....
On “Moral insanity”
And no, I don’t think America is headed toward anything like a Rome-style collapse. Our institutions are too strong, and our people, deep down, still have the same democratic values.
It seems clear that he has missed a couple of relevant details:
1) several decades of diligent work by the Federalist Society have produced a court system, now including the Supreme Court, which is no longer a reliable strong defender of those democratic values. With a bit of venue shopping, it's often possible to get a judge who is an ideologue rather than a jurist. When that's not possible, the majority on the Supreme Court is -- the main check there being that they can only hear a limited number of cases, so some precedents guarding democracy remain. For now.
2) turns out the Congress depended on tradition and good faith on the part of its members in order to function reliably. Gingrich started chipping away at that, and McConnell raised bad faith to a high art. At this point, one has to search really hard to find a Republican Congressman who shows signs of having ever heard of good faith. Or has something resembling a backbone; at least until their reelection is seriously threatened.
3) a lot of the institutions in the Executive Branch were staffed by people who are actually experts in their field. The Civil Service Act protected them from politics, so they could do their jobs. But thru a variety of ploys, the Civil Service Act has been neutered for those who will not knuckle under to the ideologues placed at the top.
In short, on the national level, those institutions are far less robust than we thought they were. The state and local levels are still solid, at least in the places most of us live. But their ablility to resist Federal overreach is limited, especially when it entails use of the court system.
As for our people, we always knew we had those among us who disliked democracy -- at least when the results were not perfectly aligned with their views of the moment. But there are rather more than we thought. Worse, there are way too many who simply can't (or at least couldn't) believe anyone would be elected and then trash the system. They are learning ("Hey, I didn't mean you coud do that here!"), but whether it will be soon enough remains to be seen.
We may yet avoid a Rome-style collapse.** But it will be a near run thing.
** Domestically. In international relations that ship has sailed. And won't return, at the earliest, until everyone in the world currently past their teens has not just passed from the scene but died.
On “Carney’s speech”
I keep thinking of it as Trump's Bored of Peace. Because he certainly does seem to be. Who needs peace, as long as he's got a supply of "losers" (whether ICE thugs or the US military) to do the fighting and dying for him.
On “Moral insanity”
Well, this administration had already gotten our (pretty nearly all ex- by this point) allies to stops sharing some info. Just because they can't be trusted. If Patel publishes this, expect them all to just walk away. US satellite intel will take time to replace, so they may keep up with restrictions on which of their people can talk to us. But even that will be just a limited, temporary expedient.
After all, it's about intelligence. And for this administration, intelligence seems to be generally anathema.
On “Rememory”
Oh, I think they could.
It's just that they are constrained by the fact that the truth never seems to fit with their needs or desires. So the only way to maintain their (and, at least for the grifters, more impirtantly) and their dupes "alternate reality" is to lie. Doctoring evidence being just one of many techniques for that.
On “Moral insanity”
Oh, I think there are also narcissistic sociopaths in service of aspiring grifters. It is, unfortunately, quite synergistic.
On “Carney’s speech”
Over half a century ago, Robert Heinlein's "Future History" included a period where the United States was in the grip of a totalitarian theocracy. Sadly, the only part he seems to have missed was that it is not (yet) religion based. At least as far as its initial leader is concerned.** Sadly, the only question yet to be answered is how the succession will be determined.
I realize that, as the resident optimist, I should be talking about how we will bounce back once Trump leaves the scene. Certainly I hope that happens. But it's increasingly difficult to expect it. Alas, Carney is probably correct about where the world goes from here.
** Well, he also predicted the US would be totally isolationist (as in cutting off all interaction with the rest of the world) throughout this. The rest of the world, at this point, probably hopes it works out that way. And sooner rather than later.
On “Rememory”
Well, it's been true since the beginning of his first campaign for President that every accusation he made was actually a confession. This is just a small addition to an enormous pile. He simply cannot imagine that anyone would fail to exploit anyone and anything they could, just like he does.
"
I'm not arguing for inherent goodness. Just that we've gotten better. Or less bad, if you prefer.
As for Obama being an outlier, I wouldn't dispute that. He's definitely an exceptionally gifted politician. I'd say the most gifted in my lifetime. But within (my) living memory, no black man, no matter how gifted, could have done what he did. Or even gotten within a thousand miles of getting the opportunity to try. That's a solid indication of progress. IMHO, of course.
"
I think that, as a nation, we are in the process of moving past it. I say "as a nation" because, while I think that more and more of us have moved past it, clearly there are still a huge number who have not. A huge but decreasing number, which is why I say "in the process." Still huge, but decreasing -- not just as a portion of the population, but as a portion of the white population. That's what has people like Miller frantic.
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. "Inconceivable" is the word.
"
Edited a comment a second time, and got a note I was going to Spam/moderation. Sorry
[ed: been approved]
"
Certainly true.
But at this point, we can do something about economics and safety relatively quickly. Not solve them completely by any means, but visibly start making progress. Having solid reasons to hope and expect things will get better, because they are already visibly improving -- that puts a big weight on the side of "I think I'll just stay where I am and work on doing better here." Most people don't like the idea of up and moving to an unfamiliar place, especially one with a different language and a different culture. Give them a reason to avoid it, and mostly they will.
Climate change, on the other hand, is something where we can, at most mitigate some of the damage. But, no matter what we do, it will continue to get worse before it gets better. We can manage "get worse more slowly" and "not get as much worse". But that's the most we can do at this point.
This is by no means to suggest we not make heroic efforts regarding climate change. Just to say, when it comes to immigration, that's not going to be part of the solution (supposing that we need one). Economics and safety will. And addressing those is the right thing to do, regardless of your views on immigration.
"
Suppose (strictly for the sake of discussion!) that we're being reasonable when worrying about immigration**. (This addresses, but does not require, the Great Replacement Theory.) What's the most effective, the most cost-effective, (not to mention the most humane, because that's apparently of no importance to those worried about immigration) approach?
Answering that requires answering the motivation question: Why do they come? The simple answer: economics and safety. Not macroeconomic generalities, but the microeconomics of individuals. Combined with, and overlapping with, the legal environment. There are other motivations, such as moving to be near family members, or even climate. But those are tiny in comparison.
So, the obvious solution to the assumed problem, is to reduce the motivation. If there are abundant economic opportunities for individuals where they are, most people will not take on the emotional and financial cost to emigrating; basically, they'll stay home. If they can live without fear, of criminal, governmental, or other attacks, people will mostly stay home. TL;DR: remove, or even seriously reduce, the motivation, and your assumed immigration problem goes away.
So, the blindingly obvious answer has two parts: 1) improve the economies of the places your immigrants are coming from. 2) improve the governance, specifically the rule of law, of the places your unwanted immigrants are coming from. Reducing to push to move.
Are we doing anything like that? Not any more.
What we do seem to be doing instead is addressing those issues by trashing our own economy, and simultaneously trashing the rule of law. Removing the attraction. It is, after all, the difference in those which provides the motivation.
If I'm understanding correctly, one big advantage is that this "spends the money here, not elsewhere." At least in the economically ignorant view to those driving it. It's bad for us, too, but either they can't see that or they just assume it won't impact them personally.
Oh, yes. The other motivation for immigration, in some cases, is that other places are just too crowded. If you improve the economy, somewhere population growth drops, or even disappears altogether. We've seen that extremely consistently. When people get richer, they tend on average to have fewer children. Another reason to improve economies elsewhere.
** Immigration has been an enormous economic boon to this country. The people already here have consistently objected to whichever group is perceived as comprising the current bulk of the immigrants. But those immigrants built the country even so. Both physically and economically. Still do.
On “An interesting map”
Geography nerds' quiz: Part of Alaska (the panhandle, including the state capital) is not an island, but can only be reached by car by driving thru another country. What other state includes that feature?
"
Any guess (other than Africa being outside their area of study) why Ethiopia isn't included in the "never colonized" group?
"
First impression: Fascinating that Japan is grouped with North Korea as well as South. But Thailand? Where did that come from?
OK, I look at the key and get a glimmer. But it still seems pretty daft. Just for openers, it utterly ignores the realities of anything but current national boundaries.
For example, Tibet was never colonized, controlled, or influenced by Europe. And not part of China until well after European influence was being eradicated in the PRC. For that matter, all of Russia** east of the Urals should be "colonized by Europe", not part of Europe. Just like the Stans in central Asia.
** For that matter, a case could be made that even European Russia qualifies as "partial European influence" -- the cultural differences from the rest of Europe are pretty stark.
On “¿Qué quieres decir cuando dices China, por favor?”
Greenlanders are genetically East-Asian too (essentially Mongols in kayaks)
Well, if you want to get technical about it, all Native Americans (First Nations) are genetically East Asians, too.
Hmmm, wonder where they'll decide to put the reservations this time. (Well, except for those like Miller, who will go for a "final solution")
On “An open thread”
Itshould be noted that two is only the maximum. This administration demonstrates that you might get only one. Or, more often with them, none.
"
Take a deep breath, Tiny. A slow deep breath.
Charles was actually agreeing with you. If these thugs were real law enforcement, they would routinely wear body cams. (Which, be it noted, are also real useful if there's an actual court case to be made in these situations.). The reason they weren't wearing them is that they are nothing like real law enforcement.
On “¿Qué quieres decir cuando dices China, por favor?”
That timing of the snatch happening just after meeting with the Chinese has been taken by some as a warning to China, and it is difficult to imagine that the US didn’t know Maduro’s schedule, however, I would have expected Trump to crow about it in some way, so maybe it was dumb luck?
I would expect that, if the timing was dumb luck, Trump would be crowing like it was his brilliant planning. Neither do I think it likely it was a warning -- that would be a level of subtlety the current administration seems incapable of.
I think a more likely possibility is that it was carefully timed out of (absolutely never under any circumstances to be admitted!) fear of the possible Chinese reaction. Trump might (probably did) warn his buddy Putin, so Russians would be moved out of harms' way. But, not having that kind of BFF relationship with Xi, what was left was careful timing.
On “An open thread”
Certainly there is an enormous amount of that on the streets. But that behavior inevitable gets a lot more attention. Just as a riot which extends across a half dozen city blocks, in a city of several million, is all you will see on the news.
But consider the last time you arrived on an international flight. The guy doing customs inspections was also ICE (customs enforcement, right?). But, at least in my observation, those folks are courteous and polite to everybody, regardless of how they look or what their proficiency in English. If all of ICE was the thugs, I'd expect something less.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.