Great news for people who had to bend over backwards pretending this disruptive, nakedly corrupt behavior was "good, actually."
But unfortunately, there are other channels for them to effectively do the same thing, as discussed in oral arguments. So still not a major win for American manufacturers or consumers, I fear.
Agree. It is harder to manufacture in America when the party leader breaks critical parts of your supply chain with rapid and unpredictable tariff changes. It is impossible to lower consumer prices on a good by raising taxes on it.
This is not even mentioning the astounding corruption of a president and his family personally and directly benefiting from these tariffs threats.
Does the party not understand the realities of this? Do they understand and are just lying about it because they're afraid of the leader? Afraid of admitting that they're wrong? I believe people are usually rational but I do not understand a rationalization where choosing to harm American manufacturers and consumers on the whims of a visibly corrupt leader is good, actually.
Does fishing without a license warrant the same large-scale violent carceral approach that DHS is taking? That would be an insane, disruptive overreaction for something that poses no public safety danger.
> It was accomplished by simply choosing to enforce the law.
They accomplished it by terrorizing people based on the color of their skin. There's nothing "simple" about creating a gigantic secret police force. There's nothing "lawful" about blatantly ignoring court orders.
You already conceded that there is no public danger. Your argument boils down yet again Great Replacement nonsense about immigrants being bad for America.
All laws? Because there are several that the administration are actively breaking. Surely you want those enforced too? How about court orders?
> Other politicians had my whole life to enforce immigration law and they chose not to.
I mean, Obama was way more effective at deporting illegal immigrants than Trump. Even by raw numbers. So I'm not sure how you can honestly argue that de-naturalization quotas are necessary now, when they weren't before for an even more effective administration.
If it's not a serious case or a national security threat, why impose de-naturalization quotas? Surely if there are real threats out there we should be dedicating the energy to those?
(Also since you brought up Obama, why was Obama able to deport so many more people than Trump? And able to do it without terrorizing US cities with secret/poorly trained police, or needing a DHS with a larger budget than most other countries' militaries?)
You're fixated on a "technically this is legal" argument. But you're (perhaps willfully) missing the larger repercussions. This administration has lied and misled about their opponents committing fraud. You know they are not acting in good faith. So why would we want to further empower capricious, inconsistent, and politically motivated behavior?
For somebody so concerned about China, how can you be so naive about the consequences of isolating America on the global stage? Actively destroying our alliances is an unforced error. How do you see our military working without the global logistical networks required to project US power?
It's so baffling to see you on this site consistently implying that Italians, Germans, or $WHOEVER are somehow worse Americans. Because if that were true, then you'd also have to acknowledge that you and I are worse Americans, which I don't think you believe.
And in general, your obsession with of the British is strange to me, because as you note, most Americans are not British and it's been that way for most of American history. Of course, there have been many great British Americans. But if we're weirdly keeping score, it's seems obvious that there would be a larger number of great Americans who weren't British?
It's interesting that you're anti-economic sanctions but pro-tariffs. This administration talking points specifically justify tariffs as punishments for countries' behaviors.
Anyway be clear, I'm talking about this administration. Specifically their choice to invade Venezuela and capture their head of state, while simultaneously pardoning the ex-Honduran head of state who was convicted for the exact same thing. When I say inconsistent, I mean: they are saying (vocally and militarily) that they are anti-drug cartel, but also they are apparently pro-some-cartels? It makes no sense to me.
Yet another incoherent policy for this administration that will be interesting to see people defend. Why does Maduro get invaded and captured but convicted drug smuggler (and ex Honduran president) Juan Orlando Hernandez get pardoned?
I mean that’s cute, but surely you can add up the two parts (single training plus globally distributed inference) and understand that the net efficiency would be an improvement?
I've seen the Microsoft Aurora team make a compelling argument that weather is an interesting contradiction of the AI-energy-waste narrative. Once deployed at scale, inference with these models is actually a sizable energy/compute improvement over classical simulation and forecasting methods. Of course it is energy intensive to train the model, but the usage itself is more energy efficient.