Yup, as much as possible.

Basically “the US is hitting us hard, so we’ll instead hit other countries in order to appease to US consumers”. To me they’re contributors to the problem, plain and simple.

You could elect a cabinet composed exclusively of orange cats united by a single and solitary shared braincell, and they wouldn’t be as idiotic.

They’d be idiotic, for sure. They’d be entertaining as well. But at least they wouldn’t be malignantly idiotic.

If it was the other way around he’d never let Carney hear the end of it - “Carney, the guy who had to get someone else to quit in order to keep his seat”.

Politicians gonna politics, no surprise there.

I’m sure Vance would definetly know. He has his home TV, after all.

You can just tell he and the rest of Trump’s cheerleaders are trying to undo any progress made during the Vatican meeting.

“Mr. President, don’t fall for their manipulation, this war will never end, they wanna take us for a ride”. You just know it.

Start giving Trump what he wants and he’ll just take, take, take until there’s nothing left.

And when we’re in a worse position than if we had stood our ground he’ll just label EU a sucker and go about his day.

Never give in to bullies. Even China knows that.

I think I see many reasons why Debby is no longer in the picture.

Anyways, how far along, truck chief?

Still not a complete shut down on him, since he’s gonna serve in another position. But better than nothing.

More interestingly, many said Waltz (who created the first signal group) would be the one to get the axe first, and not Hegseth (the one actually leaking classified data, twice) - not because he fumbled, but because he publicly admitted it, he admitted he made a mistake.

Curious to see what happens next, but so far the prophecy holds true enough.

Some people joke about Carney’s lack of a “celebrity charisma”, or being “too boring”.

Tells you all you need to know about why the US is going through its current “historic chapter”.

Better to have an economist learn how to be a politician, than a politician learn to be an economist. Too many countries allow themselves and their parliaments devolve into complete fish markets where the person talking the loudest, or getting the cheapest “gotcha” moment, are deemed to be “awesome”.

Give me boring, please. “interesting times” are only good to learn about in history books, not as they happen.

Pascal Soriot said innovation in pharmaceuticals ‘has mostly been funded by the US’

Mr. Dr. Chad here does know that Europe hasn’t invested as heavily in that sector because there was no critical need for it, right? Which now has changed.

That’s the whole point of stable economic relations like the one we had with the US until now, because there’s no point to every country producing everything as if they were alone when they can import whatever they don’t have from somewhere else.

Anyways, go and hang out with your fascist buddies if you want, as they continuously implode your whole argument of “US did more” by driving away scientists and other talent, as well as defund several critical health-related research projects.

Meanwhile, we’ll do our own thing and slowly but surely make up for lost time and misplaced trust.

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, champ. I hear these days the US isn’t the safest place for health/pharma CEO’s tho.

Don’t do it. Seriously. They’ll take the minerals and after a few years when Russia attacks again they’ll go “peace out bro, it was good while it lasted, not really our problem since we have this big and beautiful ocean separating us, thoughts and prayers” and abandon the place.

Better do it through Europe (harder but better in the long run) and collectively secure a more lasting and strong peace by way of actual deterrence and sharing of common interests. Europe won’t ever say “we don’t need to help you since we don’t need to”.

Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security, and it understands that.

Oh no! (Shocked Pikachu face)

So Trump was hiding the truth all along! He also has the same tattoos on himself, so this is clearly proven beyond all doubts to be an internal gang power struggle. It’s right there in the picture, just like with Mr. Garcia, and it can’t be fake because there’s no way to edit photos.

Trump should also be sent to CECOT since the truth about his MS13 membership is exposed.

US not beating the meme allegations anytime soon, it seems.

“I leave all my stuff to… uhh…” 💣💥

Despite the internal issues Canada is facing, sadly, there are worse external problems to worry about at the moment.

European here, proud of Canada for standing up to those echoing totalitarian rethoric. We all need unison, and given that even the so-called ‘freest nation on earth’ is at the precipice of fascism, no one should underestimate that possibility from happening to any other free nation if given the chance to fester.

For a safer world for all of us, Europe has your back.

Sigh. Pot call the kettle black. This isn’t reddit, nor is it a community specifically about US news, and it’s also hosted on lemmy.world, y’know, so it still doesn’t justify defaultism even if you tell that to yourself all day and night.

Try as you may, it still doesn’t erase the fact that not everyone commenting on a US post must absolutely be american, especially since these matters indirectly affect way more than the US by itself (and before you jump to conclusions, no, not by my choice or vote, yet I have to face reality others voted for as it is). That’s just hubris, and you’ll have to find a way to accept that while you can disagree with someone, you can’t take their voice away from them. Just like you’re well allowed to come here and whine about any particular sentence that you dislike, ignoring all context, just like you’re completely free to make up any justification to tell yourself you’re right.

Also doesn’t erase the fact that by your own logic you’re as cringe as me and all the people triggered for no reason and twisting my words or using my comment condemning the lack of due process in the article to derail the topic due to their own personal coping issues and lack of reading comprehension.

Cheers, and despite all I do hope you can sort out that frustration and contrarian attitude that got you riled up enough to actually come here and criticize others for doing exactly what you’re doing. Feel free to cringe-rant and double down on “making a big deal” out of what I said if your pride demands it, but know it’ll be in an echo chamber.

I’m sure Trump will call it defiance, maybe even “illegal”, in his own deranged view of his position. Imagine Europe throwing a tantrum over the NAFTA or USMCA agreements.

I however, choose to see it for what it is. Sovereign freedom of choice, and prioritization of reliable partners. It has to do with the US, and we can’t deny it, but it doesn’t have to be solely because of them.

This is something we should have worked on since always, given the UK is still part of the European continent and not America. Regardless of past disagreements, here’s to hoping this time we learn to rely on ourselves without dependency on other world powers.

Europe has been weakened decades ago and needed assistance after being ravaged, but we can stand on our own now, without being subject to the whims and votes of another culture we don’t even have say in.

This shock was needed for Europe to wake up, and Trump shouldn’t be surprised that his aggressive approach will only cost him the same allies that prioritized and put the US first, giving it the global power it had until now, contrary to his “we’re being taken for a ride” claims.

Thanks, and apologies as well.

I do not disagree with the original statement, since it essentially reinforces my original point that everyone should get fair treatment.

What I disagree with is with someone taking my words out of context or putting words in my mouth (I.e. saying anyone who breaks the law should be ready to face consequences, regardless of how they feel) and implying they mean something else, such as condoning the seemingly unfair treatment of the people in the article. Which is what the first commenter implied by echoing pretty much my whole point, but in an argumentative and twisted manner:

Nobody should be deported their “legality” shouldn’t matter. Nobody is illegal.

No disagreements with the above statement at face value, but I don’t know why deportation is even part of it since I did not mention it and it has nothing to do with what I said first. That’s just jumping to conclusions for the sake of creating drama where there’s no need for it.

If it’s illegal and all that, yes, they should be held to standard.

But given the fact that this administration likes to slap the word “illegal” on anything they don’t like, was it really? Or is it a boy crying wolf again?

If I had said only the first part of my original comment I could see how someone might arrive to that conclusion, even if there’s an “if” in there, but I did clarify in the next sentence that it’s nearly impossible to deem them criminals since there’s no fair standard to guide it with the current administration.

Disagreeing is one thing, and I don’t mind it as someone who defends everyone’s right to freedom of expression, but twisting/adding words words to something I said to imply something else is just dishonest and contrarian by nature. And between two people who overall agree with each other, no less, which suggests the first commenter was just looking for some place to vent regardless of the subject.

Now the kicker. The first commenter then replies again, further clearing up that they actually meant to have an actually radical stance on the matter, stating:

yes no prisons or police should exist. “lawlessness” is a good thing.

So yes, answering your question of “What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished?”, pretty much this. Which would be considered an extreme stance, even if they’re entitled to it.

Apologies, and thank you for the clarity. I certainly can’t criticize anyone for verbal subtlety being misinterpreted, that’s for sure. Cheers.

Well, for me it was gradual, and luckily I did it while they were still young (<2 years old), which made it much easier.

It ranged from presenting them certain challenges like, say, having them follow me over a small-but-intimidating hole they couldn’t easily jump over, or were afraid to. I’d first let them clearly communicate what they wanted (to reach me), then trying to encourage them to jump on their own (knowing they wouldn’t, because they were afraid). Then I’d help them once or twice, then back to start. They’d expect me to help them again, but I’d just get closer and encourage them again, providing less and less help until no help was needed. Usually at that part they tended to whine more, but I’d only catch them if I saw they weren’t gonna make. And with each step, with each improvement, make a big deal out of it - a big achievement, because it encourages them to aim higher to hear your praise.

In the case of one of them, which I got when he was a puppy retriever, he couldn’t even return inside the house because of a step by the door, as his tiny legs made it difficult. He whined, and whined, I helped at the beginning, and when I saw he could do it on his own I let him be until he made it on his own. He whined so much, so loud, and 5 minutes later I see him enter the living room all proud, looking for me. So I praised him a lot, then put him outside again to cement it - again, he whined a bit, but this time he made it faster to us. Repeat again, and this time he didn’t even whine, he just did it on his own and never got stuck there again.

Eventually I even got them to trust me to jump into my shoulders from a balcony about 2 meters high, to the point they love it and ask for it - this of course means extra wariness, since if I’m not entirely focused on them, and fail them when they trust me, they lose that trust much faster than they earn it - even if they don’t get hurt. My closest dog now even goes on his own to the rooftop whenever one of his toys ends up there, and retrieves it on his own, and jumps around like it’s not anybody’s business. You don’t need to go that far, but that’s to say the sentiment is what counts.

Basically any exercise where your dog needs you to help her overcome any sort of mental barrier, since even though you trust she can do it, she does not trust herself. And showing her that you trust her, and that she can indeed make it, and that even if she doesn’t you’ll be there for her, which will gradually make her trust you even more.

Let me be clear, I didn’t say “this type of lawlessness” anywhere. You’re likely refering to:

I don’t agree with authoritarianism, but I won’t defend lawlessness either.

Which is not at all the same statement, and that misquote implies a very different meaning to what I actually said.

What I implied is that IF it’s found that the people in that nightclub were indeed something illegal (and I don’t mean according to Trump, but according to the pre-established constitution), then they should face the consequences stated in the constitution for breaking the law just like anybody else - another thing I never mentioned is “deportation”, or even that they were immigrants, for that matter. It had nothing to do with the people involved and instead intended as a subtle criticism about how “at this moment we can’t be sure of what’s legal and what’s not” because there’s blatant abuse of the justice system, as my further statements in the original post reinforced.

Misquoting me by saying “This type of lawlessness” implies that I already decided they are indeed illegal immigrants, that they do not deserve due process, and that the automatic punishment for that is deportation. Which is the polar opposite of what I believe in and said.

Furthermore, interpreting any neutral statement (which mine wasn’t, as I’m against these discriminatory policies, but people will read it as they want to anyway) as being pro-Trump, not caring for context or semantic nuance, is pretty extreme.