Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

[ZenMode]

This is about NYC's handling of housing immigrants, I suspect any federal money is going to similarly situated housing...

While a few upscale hotels such as the Roosevelt have been converted to shelter migrants, the majority are housed in more affordable establishments, and none in five-star hotels.

Eric Trump said in a speech at the Republican National Convention, “illegal immigrants are housed in the most expensive hotels in New York,” but Sean Hennessey, a hotel industry adviser, told the New York Times it is primarily two-star hotels that are housing undocumented migrants.

New York City entered into a contract of up to $980 million with a hotel trade group to pay hotels that decide to shelter migrants under its “Sancturary Hotel Program.”

Most of those hotels were deep in debt, facing foreclosure or had received poor reviews from guests. About half were brand names including Courtyard, Holiday Inn Express, SpringHill Suites and Super 8.

The city contract requires hotels hosting migrants to pick up trash, do housekeeping every other day and provide fresh towels.

Are undocumented immigrants in most expensive New York hotels?

While about 65,000 migrants are being sheltered in New York City hotels, tent dormitories and other shelters, they are not in luxury hotels.

wisconsinwatch.org

What Eric Trump claims is of no interest. He's doing his job to paint a certain picture to benefit his dad. That's the norm for politics.

"the majority are housed in more affordable establishments, and none in five-star hotels."

Not exactly reassuring.

According to this link, NY has the third most expensive hotel average of any US city. So, if we have to house them in hotels, which I don't believe is necessary, why NY or any generally expensive city? If it's because they're close to the US immigration courts, that's illogical also because court hearings can be done remotely.

 

[nycfan]

FEMA bucks federal judge's order

FEMA official ignores judge's latest order, demands freeze on grant funding

Federal workers are being swept into the fight between Donald Trump and federal courts, with four FEMA aides fired Tuesday for being "deep state activists."

www.nbcnews.com

FEMA official ignores judge's latest order, demands freeze on grant funding​

Federal workers are being swept into the fight between Donald Trump and federal courts, with four FEMA aides fired Tuesday for being "deep state activists."

"... In an email with the subject line “URGENT: Holds on awards,” Stacey Street, the director of the agency’s Office of Grant Administration, told her team to freeze funding for grant programs going back several years, including those focused on emergency preparedness, homeland security, firefighting, protecting churches from terrorism and tribal security.

"For all awards FY23 and prior: put financial holds on all of your awards — all open awards, all years (2021, 2022, 2023, 2024)," Street wrote, using the shorthand "FY" for fiscal year.

NBC News obtained screenshots of the email from a recipient, who requested anonymity out of fear of reprisal.

"There's a lot of people who are running scared and trying to appease [the new administration]," the recipient said. "This is a violation of the court order."

Street did not immediately return a request for comment.

Earlier Monday, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell had said the Trump administration continued to implement an executive order blocking federal grant programs despite his directive restraining the implementation of that order. ..."

 

[hedge]

How dare I treat you the way you acted. You didn't think acting that disingenuous about the separation of powers didn't deserve a child's primer?

You're claiming to be omniscient and using that claimed omniscience to justify being a prick.

Wait, are you saying you weren't being disingenuous and you simply really are that dumb? Takes a big man to admit that. Kudos...

 

[hedge]

So, if we have to house them in hotels, which I don't believe is necessary

Prisons are more expensive than hotels...

 

[PandemicBlue]

1. Not even close, and certainly not close as a % of the population. American history is a long time, chief.

2. Care to respond to my post in which I reminded you that you supported the things that you now claim are horrible?

Wait a minute....your position is that we didn't have a record number of border crossings under Joe Biden's four years than we did during any other four year period in our history?

 

[dukeman92]

It will never stop being crazy to me that folks think billionaires are going to be the saviors of the poor.

It will never stop being hilariously ironic that all these "good ole country boys" who pride themselves on being mans men, champions of common sense and able to sniff out bullshit were conned by the biggest city slickest New York grifter to ever walk the earth.

 

[HandsonFire]

America is growing tired of the party who thinks it is fine to ignore American citizens in the mountains of NC while they live in tents while at the same time, tries to sneak $59 million out the back door of the EPA to send to New York in order to provide luxury accommodations to people who are not only not American citizens, but who are also here illegally. That on top of the billions already spent. And this is only one example of the many.

But by all means Democrats, keep doing you. Keep exposing what is really important to your party. America needs to know.

Prove luxury accommodations. All we have is the word of Elon and that’s worth less than the dog shit on your carpet.

 

[superrific]

Wait a minute....your position is that we didn't have a record number of border crossings under Joe Biden's four years than we did during any other four year period in our history?

Something like 12-15 million people emigrated to the US between 1870-1880. In gross numbers, that's a hjgher run rate than Biden's term; as a % of the population, it's way higher.

You said "in our history." That's skipping the part where you seem to attribute that to Biden, when he mostly had nothing to do with it. This has been explained many times and I'm not going to rehash it again. Long story short: the courts enjoined the policies that Trump criticized Biden for ending. Biden followed the law, as he should. Congress should have changed the law if it wanted different results. Sigh.

 

[rodoheel]

I think this thread is a good illustration of the conservative mindset at work, especially as it applies to things like "the rule of law" or "the constitution." To conservatives, the law has two purposes: to protect their rights and to punish their enemies/opponents. When it is doing anything other than that, the law is an inconvenience to be ignored and dispensed with. That is why conservatives will on the one hand suddenly become constitutional "originalists" when it comes to things like civil rights and gay marriage and abortion - and happily seek redress from "unelected federal judges" to prevent those rights from being extended or protected - and then turn around and decry the very idea that a judge could rule that anything their own party wants to do is unconstitutional. This seemingly obvious cognitive dissonance is not really dissonance when you remember that in the conservative mind, law that protects conservatives and restrains liberals is inherently just, while law that protects liberals and constrains conservatives is inherently unjust. This same mindset is why conservatives who claim to care about "fraud" want to investigate welfare fraud and money going to NGOs, but have no interest in PPP fraud and complain about hiring IRS auditors to investigate tax fraud. It seems nonsensical, but it makes perfect sense when you remember who conservatives think the law should protect and who it should punish.

So you can see in this thread, from PandemicBlue and callatoroy and others, that they really could not care less about whether the Trump admin and their unelected Musk-backed hacker army run roughshod over any and all legal principles that are fundamental to our system of government and/or protect against the very fraud and corruption they claim to oppose, as long as they agree (or think they agree - in reality they probably don't understand very well) with what Trump and Musk are trying to do. Any law, constitution, or "unelected federal judge" who stands in the way is just another obstacle to be bulldozed. So don't ever expect them to stand up and say that there is some legal line they don't think Trump can or should cross - because there isn't one they really care about, unless it affects them personally. So that's why their response to this thread, rather than responding to the subject matter, is simply to whine about the same stuff they always whine about - Biden crime family, benefits to illegal immigrants, open border, yada yada yada. If the Trump admin announced the suspension of civil liberties to, like, fight Mexican gangs tomorrow, they'd simply cheer.

 

[nycfan]

 

[PandemicBlue]

Prove luxury accommodations. All we have is the word of Elon and that’s worth less than the dog shit on your carpet.

What if it isn't luxury? What if it is the shittiest hotels in New York? The fact is, we are spending billions of taxpayer dollars housing, feeding, providing medical care on people who were allowed to simply, and illegally, walk right on in all the while we can't even afford to take care of the problems we currently have as a nation.

Mayor Adams said illegal immigration would destroy New York. Wonder why he would say that? You think it might have had something to do with the expense? He also likely got an investigation opened against him for saying it by an administration who was more than willing to commit lawfare whenever they deemed it necessary to shut down any opposition to their agenda.

 

[superrific]

Out of curiosity, how do you find these random tweets or skys?

 

[breepf]

I think this thread is a good illustration of the conservative mindset at work, especially as it applies to things like "the rule of law" or "the constitution." To conservatives, the law has two purposes: to protect their rights and to punish their enemies/opponents. When it is doing anything other than that, the law is an inconvenience to be ignored and dispensed with. That is why conservatives will on the one hand suddenly become constitutional "originalists" when it comes to things like civil rights and gay marriage and abortion - and happily seek redress from "unelected federal judges" to prevent those rights from being extended or protected - and then turn around and decry the very idea that a judge could rule that anything their own party wants to do is unconstitutional. This seemingly obvious cognitive dissonance is not really dissonance when you remember that in the conservative mind, law that protects conservatives and restrains liberals is inherently just, while law that protects liberals and constrains conservatives is inherently unjust. This same mindset is why conservatives who claim to care about "fraud" want to investigate welfare fraud and money going to NGOs, but have no interest in PPP fraud and complain about hiring IRS auditors to investigate tax fraud. It seems nonsensical, but it makes perfect sense when you remember who conservatives think the law should protect and who it should punish.

So you can see in this thread, from PandemicBlue and callatoroy and others, that they really could not care less about whether the Trump admin and their unelected Musk-backed hacker army run roughshod over any and all legal principles that are fundamental to our system of government and/or protect against the very fraud and corruption they claim to oppose, as long as they agree (or think they agree - in reality they probably don't understand very well) with what Trump and Musk are trying to do. Any law, constitution, or "unelected federal judge" who stands in the way is just another obstacle to be bulldozed. So don't ever expect them to stand up and say that there is some legal line they don't think Trump can or should cross - because there isn't one they really care about, unless it affects them personally. So that's why their response to this thread, rather than responding to the subject matter, is simply to whine about the same stuff they always whine about Biden crime family, benefits to illegal immigrants, open border, yada yada yada. If the Trump admin announced the suspension of civil liberties to, like, fight Mexican gangs tomorrow, they'd simply cheer.

More succinctly, Wilhoit's law: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

 

[superrific]

What if it isn't luxury? What if it is the shittiest hotels in New York? The fact is, we are spending billions of taxpayer dollars housing, feeding, providing medical care on people who were allowed to simply, and illegally, walk right on in all the while we can't even afford to take care of the problems we currently have as a nation.

1. We can afford to take care of all of our problems. We can't afford to when you idiots cut taxes so that our outlays are much bigger than the tax receipts. AND we can still borrow cheaply. The problems that exist are there by choice, and the majority of the ones you're describing have been created by the GOP.

2. How many times must it be explained to you that none of the people in NY hotels are in the country illegally? They are there because an Act of Congress provides that they can be. The executive cannot lawfully rewrite statutes of Congress. I know that frustrates you, but it's our system. You and your MAGA ilk are shitting on every single person who ever donned a uniform to fight for our country and its freedoms.

3. Again, the reason their upkeep costs so much is your team. YOU did that. We didn't do it.

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

 

[ChileG]

Something like 12-15 million people emigrated to the US between 1870-1880. In gross numbers, that's a hjgher run rate than Biden's term; as a % of the population, it's way higher.

You said "in our history." That's skipping the part where you seem to attribute that to Biden, when he mostly had nothing to do with it. This has been explained many times and I'm not going to rehash it again. Long story short: the courts enjoined the policies that Trump criticized Biden for ending. Biden followed the law, as he should. Congress should have changed the law if it wanted different results. Sigh.

On a thread about Trump violating our nation’s laws, MAGAs are bosiding with tales of Biden obeying the law.
Ahhhh…good strategy.

 

[Shenanigans]

We have discussions of this spread across multiple threads but wanted to to create a central hub to discuss attacks on judges and more importantly the lies to federal judges by DOJ lawyers and move by Trump, Musk, Vance and the Administration toward open defiance of court orders …

NYC, I am shocked.

 

[superrific]

Who arrests him? From what I've gathered, the US Marshals enforce the rulings of federal judges. But that service also falls under the purview of the DOJ and Bondi.

I'm not sure about this, but I think the Marshals are supervised/managed by the DOJ, but answer to the judiciary on questions like these. Like, if the judge orders the Marshals to arrest someone, the Marshals have to comply regardless of whether the DOJ approves. That said, personnel is policy. If the only Marshals are Trump loyalists, they might disregard the court order illegally.

 

[Bobfripp]

Musk changed his screen name again.

Musk has the maturity of a ten year old. And he's going to make gov't more efficient?