islander wrote:
I believe there were some stern warnings, not so long ago, about invading one's neighbour.

 steeler wrote:

+1

Team Trump Debates ‘How Much Should We Invade Mexico?’

In Trump’s government-in-waiting, the only question is how massive the U.S. assault on Mexican drug cartels should be



https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-mexico-drug-cartels-military-invade-1235183177/

This story is getting some debate down here. Coupled with the deportation plans and tariff talks he's really not making a lot of friends. Can't wait to see the international reactions, much less the domestic ones when he opens a hot (or at least warm) war on his own border with an ally over an issue with roots in his own country.

 kurtster wrote:
A government in a democracy will have a bureaucracy; perhaps several bureaucracies. 

The “Deep State” characterization is more appropriately applied to those with de facto authority, a sweeping agenda and ulterior motives. In my opinion, Musk and Ramaswamy appear ready to fill that bill.

Swampy fixer

It’s an achievement of sorts to be banished from Donald Trump’s court due to a lack of ethics, but Trump attorney Boris Epshteyn may yet pull that off. A report that Trump requested from several of his other attorneys has documented that Epshteyn attempted to shake down various aspirants for high-level Trump appointments, offering to talk them up with the president-elect if they saw their way clear to paying him “consulting fees” to do just that.

According to the report, Epshteyn told hedge fund manager Scott Bessent that he’d recommend him to Trump for the post of Treasury secretary if only Bessent could pay him a monthly retainer of $30,000, or, that failing, invest a cool $10 million in a three-on-three basketball league in which Epshteyn had an interest. When Bessent turned down these enticements, Epshteyn made clear just who, exactly, Bessent was spurning. “I’m Boris Fucking Epshteyn!” he declared, and followed up with what sundry Mar-a-Lagoans have reported as an intimidating exchange with Bessent in front of various Trump courtiers.

The report goes on to say that Epshteyn sought a $100,000 monthly fee from a defense contractor, adding that the offer amounted to a “do or die” proposition for the contractor’s hopes of landing either a gig or a much-desired contract.

Epshteyn has been omnipresent at Mar-a-Lago since Trump’s election, and Trump has repeatedly sought his counsel on appointments. One of Epshteyn’s strong recommendations, The New York Times has reported, was Matt Gaetz for attorney general. Even if Epshteyn didn’t solicit Gaetz for a monthly retainer, there can be no doubt that had Gaetz actually been confirmed for the post, Epshteyn would have come out ahead, assured that the Gaetz Justice Department would never look into Epshteyn-related shakedowns.

Epshteyn’s yearslong presence in Donald Trump’s court is not without precedent; in many particulars, it follows the pattern laid down by Rasputin in the court of Nicholas II. As was the case with Rasputin, most members of Trump’s court apparently considered Epshteyn unbearable, a source of generally rotten advice to his sovereign and belligerent about it to boot. According to the Times, Epshteyn’s influence and access to Trump “jarred a number of people in the incoming president’s orbit,” including Elon Musk, who “expressed surprise that Mr. Epshteyn had been granted so much authority.” (Some feel that about Musk, too, but we’ll let that pass for now.) (...)

 Isabeau wrote:
I'm waiting for the huge debacle that will be the immigrant deportations. Deporting a large mass of people takes a large amount of planning and resources. The planning would also include the countries who will be taking in the deportees. If we wants to go down the path that he wants to go down... he would start planning now for a potential rollout of this effort in 2026 maybe 2027. You need all the people hired, trained and in place as well as the facilities, transportation and logistics ironed out beforehand. And NO, just making a declaration that it is going to happen and expecting the National Guard to handle it isn't the answer. 
 
The way it will likely play out is that there will be this intense rush and pressure by Trump on his Border Czar to do something but that "something" will turn out to be a clusterf*ck of epic proportions and when the inevitable blowback happens Trump will blame Tom Holman and Tom Holman will be fired or resign (probably within 6 months). By that point Trump may be tired of everything and move onto something else shiny and new and claim the whole effort as a job well done.
 
That sounds about right.

 kurtster wrote:
Join the club.

 VV wrote:


Come January we are going to be so f*cked as a Country planet.

 VV wrote:
That's been my assessment for the last two weeks. 

As a survivor of an entire childhood of PTSD, I found I tend to go for the worst case scenario right off the bat when the shite flies. After repeated smashing of hope; the subconscious only laughs when you try to have any. Only a sense of being prepared for the worst all the time makes it tolerable. 
(imagine what its like to never know when or where the bombs will hit. Like kids in Palestine. Dysfunction, Rage, Addiction, Physical Abuse and the twisted coping families do, produces the same corrosive chemicals in the brain. Uncertainty and Fear creates a hyper-vigilant state. These kids brains (along with their bodies) will never be the same.)

The context being, 'it can only improve from here.'

Right there with ya, VV. We get to be right, until - hopefully - proven wrong. 

Come January we are going to be so f*cked as a Country. 
 
No doubt in my mind that Trump and his minions begin destroying it immediately and the devastation doesn't end until he walks out the door 4 years later.

 VV wrote:
The best ones are, baby. 

 Red_Dragon wrote:
That too. I'll bet she's a nasty woman as well.

 buddy wrote: 
For sure.  Communication 101 ... message sent does not always equal message received.

I guess the message I sent was not the one received.  I thought that the message I sent was that I was tired of beating my head against a wall to no avail.

Oh well.

 kurtster wrote:
Don’t forget to include yourself. It’s called “self care”.

 Isabeau wrote: 
Well this is one thing that we agree on.

And quite apparent looking back at all the replies directed at me.

Time to let those who need it to sort themselves out.

Check, please ...

 VV wrote:
 Particularly when it's a woman doing the explaining.

 islander wrote:

 kurtster wrote:
So when you said "No, imho. They are receiving no compensation for their efforts."...  what exactly was your point? 

Either you're so full of shit you can't remember the reason you type things... or you happen to be "that fucking stupid".  Which is it?

 VV wrote:

She did say that she would respond in kind. So he probably thinks that she'll be nice to him if he slaps tariffs on everything.