US Politics: Time for the Stormy season with a chance of conviction

[Rorshach]

If there ever was a comment to underscore just how insecure Donald Trump is..

Since it might be paywalled, it says:

Quote

Among the Trump aides in the courtroom is Natalie Harp, his ever-present favorite who uses a wireless printer to provide him with an ongoing stream of good news from the internet.

[Zorral]

He just cannot not lie.

Quote

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/07/12/multimedia/author-maggie-haberman/author-maggie-haberman-thumbLarge-v2.png?quality=75&auto=webp

April 15, 2024, 4:46 p.m. ET33 minutes ago

33 minutes ago Maggie Haberman

Shortly before court adjourned for the day, Trump’s campaign sent out a fundraising email falsely claiming he had just stormed out of court.

 

 

[Zorral]

Maybe this is why he fell asleep in the court room -- those private messages from his assistant were not the Best News of the Best News!

Trump Media closes down more than 18% after filing plans to issue more DJT stock

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/15/trump-media-shares-plunge-after-company-files-to-issue-additional-djt-stock.html

Quote

 

.... Shares of Trump Media plunged more than 15% on Monday after the company filed to issue millions of additional shares of stock.

Trump Media’s dramatic slide came as Donald Trump sat in a Manhattan courtroom for the start of his criminal trial on hush money-related charges. Trump is the majority stakeholder in the company.

Trump Media, which created the Truth Social app and trades under the stock ticker DJT on the Nasdaq, fell nearly 20% last week.

Since the company began public trading on March 26, its share price has fallen more than 62%, from an opening price of $70.90 that day down to around $27 on Monday. .....

 

 

Elsewhere someone not me suggested perhaps his defense team slipped him sleep aid to keep him from erupting in the court room and earning prison time. 

   I, for one, haven't a clue what to consider as possible any more.  

Edited April 15 by Zorral

[Zorral]

Just what this country needs -- Liz Truss to make us great again!

Truss envisions herself as an significant addition to the fascist politician coalitions here in the USA, now that the fascists in her own country have dumped her.

Imagine ... the House Crazy Ladies' reception of this loser, cuddling up to the Biggest Loser of All,  who blames her loosing on President Biden being mean to her.

What does Liz Truss’s book tell us about her American ambitions?
Martin Pengelly
in Washington

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/16/liz-truss-book-republicans-us

Quote

 

.... Truss’s book is published in the US and UK on Tuesday. The American jacket carries praise from two hard-right senators, Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah, both vocal enemies of Biden. It also carries a different subtitle from the British edition. In the UK, Truss is said to offer “Lessons from the Only Conservative in the Room”. In the US, she is “Leading the Revolution Against Globalism, Socialism, and the Liberal Establishment”. ....

.... In February, Truss attended the CPAC conference in Maryland, giving an address to an audience of what Politico called “bewildered conservatives” before appearing with Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former campaign chair and White House adviser, a leading far-right voice who pitched Truss into controversy with remarks about the jailed far-right figure Tommy Robinson. Truss will soon be back, visiting Washington to promote her book at the Heritage Foundation, the thinktank behind Project 2025, a vast and controversial plan for a second Trump administration. ....

Additionally -- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/16/liz-truss-save-the-west-delusions

 

Edited April 16 by Zorral

[LongRider]

Trouble in Paradise?

 

First Republican publicly backs Greene effort to oust Speaker Johnson | The Hill

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) announced Tuesday he will co-sponsor a resolution to oust Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) from the House’s top job.

Massie told his colleagues during a closed-door conference meeting that he will co-sponsor the motion to vacate resolution filed late last month by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), according to three GOP lawmakers in the room, becoming the first lawmaker to publicly join Greene’s effort.

Massie confirmed his announcement in a post on the social platform X.

[Fragile Bird]

On 4/14/2024 at 12:19 PM, Fez said:

I wouldn't be surprised if a few close US allies under our nuclear umbrella started looking into the feasibility of developing their own weapons after Trump made a whole lotta statements while President saying the US shouldn't defend our allies. But I doubt any of them actually have any yet, both because a nuclear weapons program takes a long time to spin up and because I think they would announce they have them as soon as they do.

Can you imagine how badly the US would lose its shit if Canada announced it was starting a bomb project? Or Mexico?

On 4/14/2024 at 12:25 PM, Zorral said:

 

In the meantime I keep thinking that the machete geocide in Rwanda that lasted approximately 100 DAYS killed more people than died in our War of the Rebellion.

This made me look up the population numbers, 2.5 M in the US in 1776, 13.78 M in Rwanda in 1994, and Rwanda was a targeted genocide. But yes, once a nation has genocide on their mind the slaughter can be fast and ruthless. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Funnily enough, Canada provided India with a nuclear reactor (CIRUS) that eventually generated enough plutonium for the latter's first nuclear test in 1974. Mostly without the knowledge of the former of course, but they had their suspicions. There are other nations using Canadian nuclear technology mostly for power production, I think safeguards were put in place to prevent use for other stuff.

I grew up...about 2 miles from where the CIRUS reactor was.

Edited April 16 by IheartIheartTesla

[Maithanet]

There are a fair number of countries, including Canada, that if they were willing to spend the necessary money, could make a nuclear weapon in less than a year.  They haven't done so because they do not want nuclear weapons, but if the calculus changes where those weapons are needed for defense, then the list of nuclear powers could get quite a bit longer very rapidly. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

the population numbers, 2.5 M in the US in 1776,

Um, the War of the Rebellion (the government's official name given to war declared post Succession by the CSA on the Union)  was 1861 - 1865.  General and President Grant always referred to that war by that name, and so did the people around him -- not the 'Civil War.'  'Civil War' as designation is part of the "Glorious Lost Cause" revisionism of history.

Though many United States historians now do think of what is called the War of Independence as our civil war, and the War of the Rebellion as the revolution.

Still, the confusion of he two reminds one how little most non USians (those few who bother, that is) do understand of either one -- such as Bruce Alexander historical mystery author focusing on the era of Sir John Fielding and the Bow Street Runners, consistently refers to the upstart rebels as being run by the Adams Brothers in his Rules of Engagement.  Whereas, as any school child should know here (but no longer do because we teach nothing now), John Adams and Samuel Adams were definitely not brothers, but somewhat distant relatives -- second cousins.  Though in that era, this might be considered more closely related than now.  But they didn't have that much to do with each other earlier, as, among other things, John was 13 years younger, and he was a hard worker and law student, while Sam was rather feckless in business, always hanging out and talking politics.  John came to believing in Independence later than Sam.

Edited April 16 by Zorral

[Wilbur]

59 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Funnily enough, Canada provided India with a nuclear reactor (CIRUS) that eventually generated enough plutonium for the latter's first nuclear test in 1974. Mostly without the knowledge of the former of course, but they had their suspicions. There are other nations using Canadian nuclear technology mostly for power production, I think safeguards were put in place to prevent use for other stuff.

I grew up...about 2 miles from where the CIRUS reactor was.

The path to nuclear power and nuclear weapons is not fraught with insurmountable obstacles.  It is a matter of determination to spend the required money and a willingness to commit to the end result.

If you review the Indian road to nuclear capability, this much becomes clear.

I imagine that most US administrations would work to reduce the risk of more nations gaining that capacity, but again, thwarting another nation's nuclear ambitions requires stubborn, persistent efforts.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

55 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

There are a fair number of countries, including Canada, that if they were willing to spend the necessary money, could make a nuclear weapon in less than a year.  They haven't done so because they do not want nuclear weapons, but if the calculus changes where those weapons are needed for defense, then the list of nuclear powers could get quite a bit longer very rapidly. 

I disagree that Canada could develop nuclear weapons in less than a year. See my previous post. This article agrees with me:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/how-quickly-could-canada-build-an-atomic-bomb
 

I’d say a minimum of 10 years. That’s roughly the timespan for building a civil nuclear power plant, so it’s hard to imagine a nuclear weapons program taking less time. 

[Altherion]

20 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

I’d say a minimum of 10 years. That’s roughly the timespan for building a civil nuclear power plant, so it’s hard to imagine a nuclear weapons program taking less time. 

It rather depends on why Canada would want a nuclear weapon in the first place. As the article points out, there are significant downsides to suddenly developing one so one would imagine that the reason to do it would be quite substantial. In that case, it's likely that the red tape and resource limitations that account for the overwhelming majority of that 10 years would not be present and it would take considerably less time. Remember, the original development took less than half of that.

[Mudguard]

It's not a requirement to have a nuclear power plant to build a nuclear bomb, but I agree, it would take much longer than a year to build a nuclear bomb.  I'm talking about a fission bomb, and not a dirty bomb.  It's not a trivial engineering feat, and would require extensive testing that is hard to hide.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I think the testing requirement isn't as high as it used to be. Computer simulations will go a very long way.

You might want a to do a test, to make sure it works as designed. But I'd argue you could get to a functioning bomb without a live test nowadays.

[Mudguard]

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I think the testing requirement isn't as high as it used to be. Computer simulations will go a very long way.

You might want a to do a test, to make sure it works as designed. But I'd argue you could get to a functioning bomb without a live test nowadays.

No chance in hell in producing your first bomb without any actual testing.  Computer simulations are only as good as the models used in the simulation, and with an untested design, your first model is going to be pretty garbage.  As you test your designs and get data, you can improve your models.  The reason why the USA can rely heavily on models nowadays is because we did extensive real world testing and accumulated tons of data that we can use to refine our models.

[ljkeane]

27 minutes ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

I’d say a minimum of 10 years. That’s roughly the timespan for building a civil nuclear power plant, so it’s hard to imagine a nuclear weapons program taking less time. 

If we're talking about a fission bomb it took the British about 5 years to build one after the US cut them out of sharing nuclear weapons technology. I'm sure Canada has people who know exactly how to make one so the limitation is having enough plutonium but if it took less than 10 years with 1940s technology I can't see it taking 10 years or more with current technology.

[Mudguard]

7 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

If we're talking about a fission bomb it took the British about 5 years to build one after the US cut them out of sharing nuclear weapons technology. I'm sure Canada has people who know exactly how to make one so the limitation is having enough plutonium but if it took less than 10 years with 1940s technology I can't see it taking 10 years or more with current technology.

The UK had been working on their own nuclear bomb technology, and then worked in conjunction with the US for a time during WW2, before they were cut off by the US.  From start to finish it took the UK more than 10 years to develop a nuclear bomb.  And they had some of the top nuclear physicists of the time working on the project.

I don't think Canada and similar countries have access to any top secret nuclear bomb building technology.  They have access to the same publicly available information that is available to everyone.  Iran, for example, should have access to the same information that Canada has, excluding information the countries obtained through their own nuclear weapons research.  If it was that easy to make nuclear weapons, Iran should have developed a bomb long ago.  

[BigFatCoward]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I think the testing requirement isn't as high as it used to be. Computer simulations will go a very long way.

You might want a to do a test, to make sure it works as designed. But I'd argue you could get to a functioning bomb without a live test nowadays.

If you only want it as a deterrent who gives a shit if it actually works? Not like your enemies are going to be too keen to find out. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Applying what it took 80 years ago to today is silly. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said:

If you only want it as a deterrent who gives a shit if it actually works? Not like your enemies are going to be too keen to find out. 

You can also just lie. Having a sign in your yard saying you have a security system works almost as well as actually having one.