Sounds about right. Still waiting for Stanger Things season 4, part 3, subsection 8: the final final chapter.

I didn’t even realize they had already made a third season. It was three years between S1 and S2, but six months between S2 & S3? That’s really odd.

I think it also comes down to the fact most people aren’t going to label the transaction “illegal drugs”. But it does make it easier to track payments and build cases against people (or oppress people depending on the government/police).

Yep, bind mount the data and config directories and back those up. You can test a backup by spinning up a new container with the data/config directories.

This is both easy and generally the recommended thing I’ve seen for many services.

The only thing that could cause issues is breaking changes caused by the docker images themselves, but that’s an issue regardless of backup strategy.

Not sure how much I trust Trump, but yeah Mike Lee (who introduced the bill) is someone who just likes introducing bills. The fact no one else joined him means this article and conversation is about all he could expect to actually happen.

The Supreme Court onky stated the injunctions must be “narrower”, but didn’t provide specifications as to what that means (to my understanding/recollection). They could still say a statewide injunction is too broad.

But yeah, I agree, I don’t know how you have a patchwork of injunctions on birthright citizenship. It just sounds do stupid. Either it is or isn’t legal, and you probably should figure it out before allowing it to affect anyone.

But the Republicans on the Supreme Court clearly don’t care about the law anymore.

The Supreme Court hasn’t actually decided if it’s illegal or not. This is just about injunctions to stop Trumps EO.

That being said, it’s also a federal issue so you couldn’t get a patchwork like abortion.

Unless I’m missing something?

When talking about birthright citizenship, how do you get narrower than nationwide injunctions?

What the Republicans in the Supreme Court seem to be arguing is that the president can ignore the law as long as the people affected can’t afford a lawsuit.

Who can even afford that.

I’m assuming this doesn’t include maintenance or insurance?

I think the question I always have is “what is driving the value”? Why do more people want it now than a year ago?

Since the only answer that I can come up with is “because someone later might pay more for it”, it makes me a little skittish to bother with it. I did invest in etherium when it looked like web 3.0 might actually be a thing, but that seems to have stagnated so I sold.

The issue right now is that every “asset” seems to only go up, the question will be how it all fairs when the next crash happens (cause it will happen eventually). Stocks in companies that produce something can usually weather a storm and rebound, same with bonds, but what does an intangible speculative asset do?

They’ve already deported US Citizens without even revoking their citizenship - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ice-deported-3-children-who-are-u-s-citizens-their-families-lawyers-say

So, we’ve kinda already crossed that threshold.

I mean, that’s everyone involved in this administration. The decisions they’ve made will have screwed over generations to come and the total productivity of this country has been shot to hell.

There is no way to look at any of these decisions in a good way.

How many times can you recall a president cursing when talking to reporters? Even Trump doesn’t curse much in his tweets or press briefings. So it’s definitely notable.

Really you should have it direct to a clone of the site, but with fake accounts pushing whatever agenda you want.

I think your misunderstanding the article. They’re not saying that Trump hasn’t called for everything and anything under the sun. They’re saying that after the bombing, trumps team was stating the attack was on their nuclear capabilities, then Trump throws out regime change.

The issue with this is that generally when you bomb someone, you are sending a message. If Trumps admin says one thing, then Trump declares another, it’s hard to know what the US actually wants and was trying to achieve with the bombings.

Its a similar issue with the tarrifs. Countries have met with the Trump admin to discuss tariffs, but the admin is struggling to define what they want, as Trump doesn’t have a plan/policy. This is causing frustrations with allies because we’re beating them up economically, but won’t tell them why or what it would take for us to stop.

Overall the issue is that Tumpisim may work on social media for constituents, but political messaging between countries generally requires more clear consistent messaging/communication.

I don’t expect DHS pushback (policy wise), but I do suspect they won’t get all the money Trump was asking for.

There is also a lot of belief that the BBB won’t get settled before July 4th. Given that it’s still getting passed back and forth between the house and senate and they only have next week.

This may be more of an opinion, but Trump hasn’t really done anything too crazy when it comes to money (the biggest line I think he crossed was moving some defense funds around for his wall in his first term).

As for the starting a war without congress. That’s a tricky one. Technically the US has given a lot of emergency powers to the President so that he could potentially drag the US into a war, but to sustain it would require acts of Congress.

From my recollection, and I could be wrong, the major issue is that passing the budget has gotten intertwined a bit with the Big Beautiful bill. This is largely due to issues around tax breaks and other legislation in the BBB having budget impacts. So I had thought that the general consensus was the BBB would need to pass before there was a chance of the budget going forward, but I may have some of those facts backwards.

That budget hasn’t been passed yet to my knowledge. Not to mention the president’s budget request never makes it through, as the house and senate always have their own priorities.

It’s cause he can’t dictate that. Tariffs are just income to pay bills, congress sets budgets and even they aren’t too happy with a budget that’s increased spending. So it’s even likely his increases to ICE DHS that he requested won’t make it through.

He could try to siphon money from elsewhere, but that’d just get caught up in the courts (and he’d probably loose as congress owns the purse).