After a ceremonial meeting with Hu Emperor Naruhito where Trump again broke an ally's royal protocol, shaking the Emperor's hand instead of bowing, the POTUS appeared confused and lost during a welcome ceremony with Prime Minister Takaichi.
“Such shameful display” - Shogun 2 Announcer

Any bets Trump would embarrass himself and puke on the prime minister’s lap?
 
so , ı have seen some question on how it could be done , justifying that people should suffer .

02-11-2025.jpg


as a teaching aid .

also churches and various NGOs will no doubt support you as long as you are a good person . And now they have the means to check whether you vote Republican as you have promised to do . They won't remove the elections , it is an illusion that keeps many from taking arms .
 
also churches and various NGOs will no doubt support you as long as you are a good person . And now they have the means to check whether you vote Republican as you have promised to do . They won't remove the elections , it is an illusion that keeps many from taking arms .
This is getting ever jarring. I do not like this pathway we are going in. This is just going to add in more suffering to the less fortunate and the needy.

What is Trump aiming to do? Starve out he finds lesser? What is his aim on going scorched Earth on social safety nets? Is Trump and his inner circle aiming to punish the people who’ve voted for Harris?
 
bismarck created an empire on blood . He wanted it to last . Bordered by a colossus to the East and a country with burning memory of Napoleon to the West , depending on British good will , he gave promises to the Social Democrats . As the story goes .

you and ı , for the sake of this argument live in the same country . Social Democracy makes us both pay taxes . Don't know you but let us say ı am a trillionaire many times over . When ı fail , your taxes save me . When you fail , you are miserable and why should ı care . But for the Social State , the laws , the traditions . You have at least a soup to drink while you live in the streets . And ı can't have some sort of fox hunting thing to save you from your miserable life .

if ı destroy the Social State , ı no longer pay taxes . But you do . Your money is still mine . ı owe you nothing . If you want soup , you will know your place , shut up , in real life and on the internet and the many NGOs ı have created for tax evasion purposes over the years might feed you . Vigilantly observing you to follow the line and be no threat or anything by any sign of discomfort at your station in life .

apparently these rich people have consumed every taste in life and are very bored . So they cosplay the Greek Gods or something . Would also add certain prophesies about the end of times talk of Kings so these people are arranging their places in the front rows . Trump is just a guy . If he was to have a stroke tonight , everything he did and will do would go on without a hitch .
 
they were already dependent before the policy was implemented. that's why the policy was implemented. it was needed.
Ah — this is a nuance of how language is used in American political discourse that has become second nature to me: dependency carries with it a negative connotation of perpetuity, a lack of interest in moving one’s economic status out of poverty.
foundation. in the us, the minimum wage is trash, the cost of transport is insane, the majority of the land area are socioeconomic mobility black holes, cost of living is on the rise-
Without going into too much of a tangent, I’ll address each as I see it—first, the percentage of full-time workers receiving the minimum wage is less than 1%.

The rest of these are anecdotal. The cost of transportation is something that I think is built-in to both the American mentality and geography, the car is king. Most of the land a black hole? I haven’t seen it. Cost of living has definitely risen, but I think compared to 30 years ago consumption has risen at an even faster pace overall.
snap. snap is the result of corporate interests rounding up traps of guaranteed consumption, and the government either enabling it or doing nothing (both result in the same situation, one expedites it).
I’m not sure what you intend to say with this because we both know that everyone needs to eat and most people are not farmers. Is it about how the money is spent, or that companies that produce things like junk food can scale production better? If so, I’d have to have more information about it before making a sound judgment but I would again say that in principle I think if there are subsidies, to either producers or consumers, they should be targeted more towards things that are not completely unhealthy.
if you don't like snap and support republican policy (which you're continously arguing for), you're pushing for people to be trapped in poverty, let alone starve.
I don’t think that I had pushed for Republican policy on food stamps, at least as far as I’m aware and the discussion in my mind isn’t around the current benefit regime but a hypothetical scenario—this is why I’m skipping some of the next part. Is the current system of benefits too much, too little, just right? I don’t honestly know.
meanwhile, you say the government should not X, and i sincerely just ask why not. i seriously question where your worry comes from. you throw up percentages of government dependency as if it means anything
The question of why not to me is that bums, not working people, shouldn’t be rewarded, and policy shouldn’t end up creating more bums. A bum doesn’t need to be poor, there are plenty of well-to-do people that coast along and contribute little, but they’re not expecting that I pay for it.
so your "concern is avoiding a situation where you have a population wholly dependent on government subsidy, irrespective of their ability to pay", with the maxim that the government needs to have a "reasonable limitation". first off, the two don't actually have anything to do with one another, esp as the latter sentence is so vague. reasonable limitation can mean literally everything because "reasonable" carries the whole weight of what limitation means (reasonable is just the smartsounding word for good, it's hugely subjective). so it's a bad maxim. and secondly, for the "dependency" itself being total; let's go there for a bit.

say some people get a free ride. why do you care?

like, really? honestly? does it sting?
It does. How many people are going to open their wallets for me if I decide I didn’t want to pay for anything? Remember, we are talking about principle rather than the conditions of the existing system.

That’s where the reasonable part of the limitations comes in: no one as far as I know sincerely believes there should be no upper limit to how much or how many can receive assistance. I’m just speculating that how much people should get, and who can get it, fall in line with much of the general population and not the extreme position of “cut them all off and let them sort it out.”

I’m skipping some parts here because I agree with you.
anyways, the ride naturally isn't free. it costs money - and earns more back lol.
You’re talking about the multiplier effect, and I think that exists here with food stamps up to a point, but I think it’s less than 1 and goes down for every extra dollar spent on it.
and with all that outlined, do a mental cost-benefit analyses. how much money does it save?
I agree that the most stringent enforcement regime is likely going to be more costly than letting in outliers. My point is that assistance shouldn’t be set at a level that motivates people to become people that don’t have the economic necessity for it—just an extreme idea to explain the principle: if there was a government program that paid people $500,000 in cash, tax free, every year, people would be lined up for miles to get it. I would! So the idea is to have a system whereby people want to be off it, not on it. If that’s how it works now, good. If not, it needs a change.
say some people get a free ride. why do you care?
For one, I don’t derive any benefit from it—why should I work if I don’t have to? I’ve had crappy jobs. Part of life.

Other part is that I don’t think there can be a functioning society if programs are made, intentionally or not, that create these incentives for people to just not do anything. Just to reemphasize, I’m not talking about current benefit systems.
 
Without going into too much of a tangent, I’ll address each as I see it—first, the percentage of full-time workers receiving the minimum wage is less than 1%.
I thik that is the proportion getting the federal minimum wage, which is possibly only five states (AL, LA, MS, SC, TN). So that is a small percentage of the total number of people on minimum wage.
 
I think that is the proportion getting the federal minimum wage, which is possibly only five states (AL, LA, MS, SC, TN). So that is a small percentage of the total number of people on minimum wage.
I looked and I saw the number of states paying the federal minimum was closer to 20 if the maps I saw are correct. Nevertheless, I’m sure it could all be broken down if someone wanted to go through all fifty states (I tried—albeit briefly—looking for data on a nationwide scale of people paid at state wages but found nothing) and do calculations on that, adjusting for costs of living and so on, but I think the overriding point still stands that the large majority of Americans are not at this level.
 
Nearly 60 million Americans get under 15 US dollars an hour, about 45 million get under 12 dollars an hour.


Those wages are below what a civilised minimum wage would be.

There's American active military personnel who rely on food stamps, it's crazy for anyone to be talking about an over generous welfare system or excessive pay in an American context. The place is wildly extravagantly unequal.
 
I think I read USA charities and food banks provide 1 meal for every 9 meals that the food stamp/EBT/SNAP program provides.

If things turn off it will be concerning.
 
SNAP plays a vital role for low-wage workers, those who are in between jobs, and the disabled population. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported that “Adults who receive SNAP often work in occupations and industries with low pay or unstable hours that cause income volatility, such as important frontline service or sales roles like cashiers, cooks, or home health aides.” Despite popularly held myths about SNAP recipients being unemployed, data from the U.S. Census Bureau revealed that most SNAP recipients work. 2021 data from the U.S. Government Accountability Office indicated that 70% of people who relied on government programs like SNAP and Medicaid worked fulltime, with most working in the private sector, in places like restaurants, department stores and grocery stores.
 

Trump tells military to prepare for 'action' against Islamist militants in Nigeria​

US President Donald Trump has ordered the military to prepare for action in Nigeria to tackle Islamist militant groups, accusing the government of failing to protect Christians.

Trump did not say which killings he was referring to, but claims of a genocide against Nigeria's Christians have been circulating in recent weeks and months in some right-wing US circles.

Groups monitoring violence say there is no evidence to suggest that Christians are being killed more than Muslims in Nigeria, which is roughly evenly divided between followers of the two religions.

An advisor to Nigeria's president told the BBC that any military action against the jihadist groups should be carried out together.

Daniel Bwala said Nigeria would welcome US help in tackling the Islamist insurgents but noted that it was a "sovereign" country.

He also said the jihadists were not targeting members of a particular religion and that they had killed people from all faiths, or none.

Nigeria's President Bola Tinubu has insisted there is religious tolerance in the country and said the security challenges were affecting people "across faiths and regions".

Trump wrote in a social media post on Saturday that he had instructed the US Department of War to prepare for "possible action".

He warned that he might send the military into Nigeria "guns-a-blazing" unless the Nigerian government intervened, and said that all aid to what he called "the now disgraced country" would be cut.

Trump added: "If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians!"

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth replied to the post by writing: "Yes sir.

"The Department of War is preparing for action. Either the Nigerian Government protects Christians, or we will kill the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities."

Mr Bwala, who said he was a Christian pastor, told the BBC's Newshour programme that Trump had a "unique way of communicating" and that Nigeria was not taking his words literally.

"We know the heart and intent of Trump is to help us fight insecurity," he said, adding that he hoped Trump would meet Tinubu in the coming days to discuss the issue.

Trump earlier announced that he had declared Nigeria a "Country of Particular Concern" because of the "existential threat" posed to its Christian population. He said "thousands" had been killed, without providing any evidence.

This is a designation used by the US State Department that provides for sanctions against countries "engaged in severe violations of religious freedom".

Following this announcement, Tinubu said his government was committed to working with the US and the international community to protect communities of all faiths.

"The characterisation of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality," the Nigerian leader said in a statement.

Jihadist groups such as Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province have wrought havoc in north-eastern Nigeria for more than a decade, killing thousands of people - however most of these have been Muslims, according to Acled, a group which analyses political violence around the world.

In central Nigeria, there are also frequent clashes between mostly Muslim herders and farming groups, who are often Christian, over access to water and pasture.

Deadly cycles of tit-for-tat attacks have also seen thousands killed, but atrocities have been committed on both sides and human rights group say there is no evidence that Christians have been disproportionately targeted.

Trump has frequently expressed satisfaction over not having embroiled the US in a war during his tenure, and has cast himself as a peace-making president.

But the Republican leader is facing a growing number of voices domestically, particularly from the political right, who have drawn attention to the situation in Nigeria.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cev18jy21w7o
 

Trump tells military to prepare for 'action' against Islamist militants in Nigeria​

US President Donald Trump has ordered the military to prepare for action in Nigeria to tackle Islamist militant groups, accusing the government of failing to protect Christians.

Trump did not say which killings he was referring to, but claims of a genocide against Nigeria's Christians have been circulating in recent weeks and months in some right-wing US circles.

Groups monitoring violence say there is no evidence to suggest that Christians are being killed more than Muslims in Nigeria, which is roughly evenly divided between followers of the two religions.

An advisor to Nigeria's president told the BBC that any military action against the jihadist groups should be carried out together.

Daniel Bwala said Nigeria would welcome US help in tackling the Islamist insurgents but noted that it was a "sovereign" country.

He also said the jihadists were not targeting members of a particular religion and that they had killed people from all faiths, or none.

Nigeria's President Bola Tinubu has insisted there is religious tolerance in the country and said the security challenges were affecting people "across faiths and regions".

Trump wrote in a social media post on Saturday that he had instructed the US Department of War to prepare for "possible action".

He warned that he might send the military into Nigeria "guns-a-blazing" unless the Nigerian government intervened, and said that all aid to what he called "the now disgraced country" would be cut.

Trump added: "If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians!"

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth replied to the post by writing: "Yes sir.

"The Department of War is preparing for action. Either the Nigerian Government protects Christians, or we will kill the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities."

Mr Bwala, who said he was a Christian pastor, told the BBC's Newshour programme that Trump had a "unique way of communicating" and that Nigeria was not taking his words literally.

"We know the heart and intent of Trump is to help us fight insecurity," he said, adding that he hoped Trump would meet Tinubu in the coming days to discuss the issue.

Trump earlier announced that he had declared Nigeria a "Country of Particular Concern" because of the "existential threat" posed to its Christian population. He said "thousands" had been killed, without providing any evidence.

This is a designation used by the US State Department that provides for sanctions against countries "engaged in severe violations of religious freedom".

Following this announcement, Tinubu said his government was committed to working with the US and the international community to protect communities of all faiths.

"The characterisation of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality," the Nigerian leader said in a statement.

Jihadist groups such as Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province have wrought havoc in north-eastern Nigeria for more than a decade, killing thousands of people - however most of these have been Muslims, according to Acled, a group which analyses political violence around the world.

In central Nigeria, there are also frequent clashes between mostly Muslim herders and farming groups, who are often Christian, over access to water and pasture.

Deadly cycles of tit-for-tat attacks have also seen thousands killed, but atrocities have been committed on both sides and human rights group say there is no evidence that Christians have been disproportionately targeted.

Trump has frequently expressed satisfaction over not having embroiled the US in a war during his tenure, and has cast himself as a peace-making president.

But the Republican leader is facing a growing number of voices domestically, particularly from the political right, who have drawn attention to the situation in Nigeria.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cev18jy21w7o
I am not sure what to think of this. If there is any group that deserves international forces aimed at them it probably is Boko Haram, but I am sure Trump can find a way to do it that causes more harm than good.

It also has to be pointed out that Nigeria has loads of oil and rare earths, not that that could have anything to do with it.

I shall, with a certain amount of trepidation, make a joke about not telling Trump Boko Haram means ending education because then he may join them.
 
Last edited:
Estimates put Nigerian Christians at about 100 million people. ~80% are Protestants and ~20% Catholic.

From wiki:

Persecution​

According to the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law, as reported on LinkedIn, there were 52,250 Christian deaths recorded from July 2009 to April 2023. This figure includes:

  • 5,068 Christians killed in 2022.
  • 1,041 Christians killed in the first 100 days of 2023.
  • 30,250 Christian deaths from June 2015 to April 2023, attributed to radical Islamism under the leadership of President Buhari.
  • 53,350 Christians killed since the Islamic uprising in July 2009, with 31,350 of those deaths occurring from June 2015 to May 2023.
The killings have been referred to as a silent genocide
 
The killings have been referred to as a silent genocide
By whom? The majority of Boko Haram's victims have been Muslims, as a function of the areas they operate.
 
By whom? The majority of Boko Haram's victims have been Muslims, as a function of the areas they operate.
:dunno: local Christians?
 
I really don't know what happens next.
The government can withhold payment and appeal on the grounds of bah-humbug?

More good news.
The Trump administration will not appeal the judge's decision. :)

The SNAP money from the emergency fund should go out by Monday the 3rd, or partial money should go out by Wednesday the 5th.


The order cites contingency funds from fiscal years 2024 and 2025, as well as Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935, as potential sources to ensure SNAP payments are made.

USDA has argued that it lacks the legal authority and sufficient funds to provide full SNAP benefits for November amid the ongoing partial government shutdown. The agency also contended in court that even if contingency funds were available, they would not cover the full payments and implementing reduced benefits nationwide would be administratively challenging.

According to administration lawyers, $5.25 billion is currently available in the program’s contingency fund, though ensuring full payments for November could require at least $8.5 billion.

The judge also added some positive reinforcement by praising Trump when he decided to follow the law.
Might as well, flattery works on Trump sometimes.

A footnote in the order acknowledges Trump’s involvement, noting the court’s recognition of his efforts to facilitate timely funding.

"The court greatly appreciates the president’s quick and definitive response to this court’s order and his desire to provide the necessary SNAP funding," U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell Jr. wrote in a court order on Saturday.


There is some chatter the shutdown might end this week after the odd year November 4th elections. :hmm:
Hope springs eternal.
Things will really hit the fan if this drags on until Thanksgiving on the 27th.
 
I don't understand how you can turn the government on and off like a light bulb. And it is a pretty usual occurrence apparently. You Americans are pretty crazy.
 
I don't understand how you can turn the government on and off like a light bulb. And it is a pretty usual occurrence apparently. You Americans are pretty crazy.
One of Reagan's cronies back in the 80s set the precedent that when Congress can't came up with a budget, just shut the federal government down instead of just keeping it open with the current funding like other governments do.
 
The US loves to have complicated processes to use for political leverage and logjams.
 
Back
Top Bottom