[PL1]

The whole sh#tshow in the US is on Biden. Imagine instead, it’s Jan 2022, two years into his term, Biden takes to the press room and declares, “as promised in the 2019 campaign, I would be a transitional president, and it’s now time to pass the torch. I will not be running in 2024 and ask that the DNC prepare a competitive convention in 2023.” We’d have no Kamala, and instead someone likely unexpected will shine.

Hard disagree. It's on the 70% of Americans that either voted for Trump, or couldn't imagine voting for a Black woman.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's on the 70% of Americans that either voted for Trump, or couldn't imagine voting for a Black woman.

I like your point. It can be both.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hard disagree. It's on the 70% of Americans that either voted for Trump, or couldn't imagine voting for a Black woman.

That might be right - but it doesn't win you elections - and if you can't win, all else is moot.

AoD

 

[PL1]

I like your point. It can be both.

But I also agree Biden should have announced much sooner he wouldn't run. I believe he would have lost heavily

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yeah, but the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party was not about the relatively peaceful (as in, no injuries to humans) destruction of government-adjacent property in the name of protest. The 2007 group were an astroturfed libertarian small government anti-tax movement that chose to coopt the very famous name of a group who were revolting against a lack of representation in government. They used a familiar name to gain ground, not because they actually represented what the Boston Tea Party stood for. My point stands though that destroying property to send a signal to the government has quite literally been enshrined in US history as a valid form of protest, and not an "act of terrorism". If a government insists solely on revolving around free-market capitalism, what other form of protest is going to send as strong as message as destruction of capital?

Sure, the flip side of that is basically convincing everyone who disagree with the use of violence that individuals engaging in these activities are the problem. And what's the win for using force in the first place?

Also the historical Tea Party resulted in an insurrection/counterrespose that turned into the War of Independence. Are those engaging in such acts today prepared to go down that route? I have a feeling not. And if not, burning cars are just for LOLs.

AoD

 

[Admiral Beez]

Sure, the flip side of that is basically convincing everyone who disagree with the use of violence that individuals engaging in these activities are the problem. And what's the win for using force in the first place?

Also the historical Tea Party resulted in an insurrection/counterrespose that turned into the War of Independence. Are those engaging in such acts today prepared to go down that route? I have a feeling not. And if not, burning cars are just for LOLs.

AoD

POTUS01 was the original traitor and American terrorist. A commissioned British officer goes rogue, raises a self-declared army and goes on the rampage. The Taliban couldn't have done it better.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

POTUS01 was the original traitor and American terrorist. A commissioned British officer goes rogue, raises a self-declared army and goes on the rampage. The Taliban couldn't have done it better.

Traitor from the perspective of the British - certainly; terrorist? That's a more loaded word. In any case, POTUS 1 is hardly the first, and definitely not the last to reside in this sort of situation (plenty of examples from the 20th century).

AoD

 

[zang]

Also the historical Tea Party resulted in an insurrection that turned into the War of Independence. Are those engaging in such acts today prepared to go down that route? I have a feeling not. And if not, burning cars are just for LOLs.

But the Boston Tea Party was years before the actual revolution. It helped spark it the war, but that wasn't the goal of those who participated. Nor was it viewed positively by the founding fathers. It was after the crown reacted with their disapproval by closing Boston Harbour, enacting the Coercive Acts, and martial law that things turned towards full revolution. Attempting to strongarm the populace instead of actual reform failed spectacularly.

I'd argue there are quite a large percentage of US Citizens who right now want massive change in the government if not its dissolution. It's why we're here in the first place. A lot of Trump supporters don't care much for what's in the constitution as it is. Texas and Alaska have wanted to secede for ages. In the entirety of the collection of congressional approval ratings (1974-today), it's only ever been out of the negatives for three years (2000-2002). It now sits at historic lows. The Supreme Court's approval rating has been gradually declining to where it historic lows last year. Public trust in the government hasn't broken 50% since Nixon. Even the guy with ultimate executive power has never peaked over 49%.

I'd argue the only things keeping the US together are a nostalgia for its past and a fear of what might happen if it splits; not for any great love for the country as it is.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

But the Boston Tea Party was years before the actual revolution. It helped spark it the war, but that wasn't the goal of those who participated. Nor was it viewed positively by the founding fathers. It was after the crown reacted with their disapproval by closing Boston Harbour, enacting the Coercive Acts, and martial law that things turned towards full revolution. Attempting to strongarm the populace instead of actual reform failed spectacularly.

I'd argue there are quite a large percentage of US Citizens who right now want massive change in the government if not its dissolution. It's why we're here in the first place. A lot of Trump supporters don't care much for what's in the constitution as it is. Texas and Alaska have wanted to secede for ages. In the entirety of the collection of congressional approval ratings (1974-today), it's only ever been out of the negatives for three years (2000-2002). It now sits at historic lows. The Supreme Court's approval rating has been gradually declining to where it historic lows last year. Public trust in the government hasn't broken 50% since Nixon. Even the guy with ultimate executive power has never peaked over 49%.

I'd argue the only things keeping the US together are a nostalgia for its past and a fear of what might happen if it splits; not for any great love for the country as it is.

And how do you think the US government, under Trump, is going to react if these attacks continue? We already knew there is an interest in reclassification of these attacks; nevermind the ongoing attempt to weaken the rule of law and the constraints on armed forces.

As to the US public - I am of the opinion that they have no clue what the "massive changes" they *thought* wanted - whatever it was - actually meant. Having said that, the country split once before, bitterly at that - and ultimately American identity survived.

AoD

 

[zang]

And how do you think the US government, under Trump, is going to react if these attacks continue? We already knew there is an interest in reclassification of these attacks; nevermind the ongoing attempt to weaken the rule of law and the constraints on armed forces.

Trump is authoritarian. He's going to keep trying to crack down on everything. Not just active threats, but passive ones too. I'm not saying that if his free rein continues that this ends in anything other than another messy, bloody civil war, a complete hermit nation like North Korea, or both. At this point, Margaret Atwood appears to be one of the great prophets of our time.

As to the US public - I am of the opinion that they have no clue what the "massive changes" they *thought* wanted - whatever it was - actually meant.

Oh, I agree. They wanted change and voted for the loudest voice screaming "I'm going to change things!", not being fully aware that his kind of change is only what a small group actually want. But how do you get the fox out of the chicken coop after you've invited it in?

Having said that, the country split once before, bitterly at that - and ultimately American identity survived.

But the American identity in the south has been quite different from the Midwest and the coasts. Trips through the southern US as a child, I'd almost have thought the south won the civil war given all the confederate imagery. It wasn't until what? a decade ago? that the confederate battle flag was considered offensive and "anti-American". Concessions were made to the south that lasted well into our own lifetimes and are untenable now. There was no national agreement as much as it was one side conceding with the intent to recuperate in the future and the other side ceding power to bring the war to a close.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

U.S. officials cracking down on people trying to bring valuable eggs across the border​

Egg interceptions up 116% so far this year, while seizures of fentanyl down 32%​

From https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-border-fentanyl-eggs-1.7486369

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly said the flow of the deadly drug fentanyl across the border must be stopped.

But U.S. border officials are increasingly cracking down on another valuable product these days: eggs.

Officials made 3,254 egg-related seizures in January and February 2025, according to new data released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). That's a 116 per cent increase in egg seizures compared to the 1,508 events the same two months a year ago.

The rise comes as U.S. wholesale egg prices are shattering records as an accelerating outbreak of bird flu in laying hens slashes supplies. Trump promised to lower egg prices on his first day in office but prices increased 59 per cent on a year-on-year basis in February, the first full month of his administration.

And while wholesale prices may be coming back down, they "have yet to be reflected at store shelves," according to the USDA's most recent egg markets overview.

Egg interceptions at the Detroit border crossing (where most eggs are coming in from Canada) increased 36 per cent in the 2025 fiscal year compared to the same time period in 2024, according to data provided by CBP to CBC News.

In Windsor, Ont., a dozen large white eggs at Walmart currently costs about $3.93. On the other side of the border in Michigan, a dozen large white eggs at Walmart costs about $8.50 Cdn.

Overall, the U.S. CBP reports a 36 per cent increase in eggs being detained at all ports of entry this fiscal year, which is October 2024 to February 2025.

These numbers do not capture what is actually smuggled into the country, although CBP says most of the egg seizures happen after travellers willingly declare the product.

Fentanyl seizures down 32%​

Fentanyl, on the other hand, was intercepted by CBP 134 times in January and February this year, down 32 per cent from 197 seizures the same two months in 2024. Of those 134 events in 2025, nine were at the northern border with Canada, working out to 0.53 kilograms of the 740 kilograms seized so far overall.

Canada has represented less than one per cent of all seized fentanyl imports into the U.S., according to federal data. About 19.5 kilograms was seized at the northern border last year compared to 9,570 kilograms at the southwestern border.]

The latest monthly Consumer Price Index showed a dozen Grade A eggs cost an average of $5.90 US, or about $8.40 Cdn, in U.S. cities in February, up 10.4 per cent from a year ago.That eclipsed January's record-high price of $4.95 US, or about $7 Cdn.

The CBP has issued at least two different warnings so far this year about smuggling raw eggs across the border from Mexico. The San Diego Field Office has seen a 158 per cent increase in egg interceptions since fiscal year 2024, according to a news release on Feb. 27.

Meanwhile, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents in El Paso, Texas, have stopped at least 90 people from attempting to smuggle raw eggs into the country from Mexico since January, the agency said in a news release Feb. 21.

 

[kEiThZ]

Intimidation is a blanket definition for terrorism?

At no point did I say intimidation itself was terrorism. Read what I wrote slowly and carefully.

I said political violence that aims to intimidate or coerce a group or the wider public for political aims, is terrorism. If you go out and randomly intimidate your neighbour, that's not terrorism. You go out and blow up his car, hoping to change his vote? That's terrorism.

In the case of burning Teslas, it is politically motivated violence aiming to effect political change. That's terrorism. Let's say, for a second, that it was angry conservatives blowing up Priuses during the Obama era because they hate his climate policy. Would you have not said that was terrorism? Cause I would have.

 

[zang]

In the case of burning Teslas, it is politically motivated violence aiming to effect political change. That's terrorism. Let's say, for a second, that it was angry conservatives blowing up Priuses during the Obama era because they hate his climate policy. Would you have not said that was terrorism? Cause I would have.

That's a way too simplified analogy though. I certainly wouldn't consider it "terrorism" if the CEO of Toyota were actively harming US citizens with arbitrary job and funding cuts, while violating numerous conflict of interest laws, hocking Camrys on the front lawn of the White House and actively ignoring judicial decisions and congressional powers as both an unelected and unconfirmed-congressionally agent of the US government—all with the blessing of Obama.

Unless its goal was to target everyday Toyota drivers with violence, I'd also consider your Toyota posit to be vandalism, not terrorism.

Regardless, just torching property because you disagree with the government is different than torching the property and most well known symbol of one of the primary agents in a government coup.

Surely you can see the difference here.

 

[afransen]

At no point did I say intimidation itself was terrorism. Read what I wrote slowly and carefully.

I said political violence that aims to intimidate or coerce a group or the wider public for political aims, is terrorism. If you go out and randomly intimidate your neighbour, that's not terrorism. You go out and blow up his car, hoping to change his vote? That's terrorism.

In the case of burning Teslas, it is politically motivated violence aiming to effect political change. That's terrorism. Let's say, for a second, that it was angry conservatives blowing up Priuses during the Obama era because they hate his climate policy. Would you have not said that was terrorism? Cause I would have.

It's a bit of a slippery slope. Is Rolling Coal then terrorism?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Inauguration Day 2029

Countdown timer showing how much time left until Saturday, January 20, 2029 12:00:00 PM in timezone Eastern, US (UTC-05:00)

www.tickcounter.com