In other countries, that kind of problems have been traditionally solved by visiting a military base and politely asking for armed assistance. If things really end up badly (which I hope they don’t - a court order should be enough to end Trump’s circus) - then the 0.7 trillion will be fighting on both sides.

To be fair to Trump, I read the blurb at “whitehouse.gov” and while it does hopelessly attempt to construe an “invasion”, it’s legally untenable. My guess: he’s either insane or bluffing.

They’re tearing $96.7 billion out of the economy. That’s how much undocumented immigrants contributed in taxes in 2022

This seems realistic, but could be an underestimate. Google tells me:

Immigrants make up over 19% of the US workforce as of June 2024 — over 32 million out of a total of 169 million — and participate in the labor force at a higher rate than native-born workers, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

How many of them would be at risk of deportation - illegal, so to say - is a much harder question because people don’t tell “oh, by the way, I’m illegal” to the authorities. From an economic viewpoint, harassing 20% of the country’s work force with the aim of deporting even 5% of the country’s work force is committing political suicide. It’s taboo of the highest order.

Stephen Miller and the Trump legal machine are now planning to label undocumented immigration as an “invasion,” which would let them bypass courts and jail people without charges, trials, or legal representation.

If they do, courts will soon rule “this is not an invasion”.

If the Trump administration then ignores the courts, both the judicial branch and the population will have a common goal: to bring the executive branch into compliance. Methods will differ, of course.

P.S.

Legal advise from the devil: habeas corpus can’t be suspended because of someone’s assassination. :)

Wait until you happen to visit to Risti, Estonia, where a mast named Soorebane inhabits an intersection of some country roads. :)

Of course, it’s an artsy decorative exception for where a high voltage line must cross through a public place. In all other places, ordinary lattice grid masts.

I really like to build from zero, but some things are better copied, no matter if you fully understand them or fall short. :)

For example, I’m not qualified to check if Hamilton and Euler were correct - I only do as they explained, and later double-check the output against input.

A counterpoint: unmanned technology has developed really fast recently. In old times, one had to be motivated as hell, because taking a shot at a president meant likely death.

In our days, for a technically capable adversary, an attempt costs only moderate amounts, escape is far more likely, and tools can rigged with self-destruction mechanisms to considerably hinder evidence collection.

I’d say that barriers are lower due to drones and robots. Then again, to get drones and robots pointed at oneself, one has to piss off people who have better things to do. That is, people who are unlikely to be desperate, since they could likely emigrate and find a well-paying job in a week.

If I try to predict a profile, I come up with “a technically competent person with an incurable disease, no longer covered by health insurance”. Or perhaps “a war veteran with an incurable disease”.

I don’t know the details. Wikipedia estimates Chinese losses as 26 000 killed, 37 000 wounded with 420 tanks and 66 guns lost. Vietnamese losses are estimated at 30 000 killed, 32 000 wounded, 185 tanks, 200 guns and 6 missile launchers lost - so it’s safe to assume they didn’t use butter knives.

Their preferred method of bombing might have been artillery, though - due to the lack of high capacity bomber aircraft, and due to lack of air superiority. Despite this, Wikipedia also mentions:

“The 372nd Air Division in central Vietnam as well as the 917th, 935th and 937th Air Regiments in southern Vietnam were quickly deployed to the north.[61]”

The Vietnamese source article is here. A relevant part seems to be this:

“When the border war began, the Ministry of National Defense also decided to send part of the 372nd Air Division (Hai Van Group) to the North to perform missions. From February 18 to March 3, 1979, squadrons of the 917th Air Regiment (Dong Thap Group), 935 (Dong Nai Group) and 937 (Hau Giang Group) including 10 UH-1 helicopters, 3 U-17 reconnaissance aircraft, 10 A-37 attack aircraft, and 10 F-5 fighter-bombers were deployed at Hoa Lac, Kep, Bach Mai and Noi Bai bases, respectively.”

I’m unable to find more details or an account from the Chinese side.

No, it’s not deliberate. “To bombard someone with letters” is an expression actively used in the English language.

China hasn’t dropped bombs in, what, 60 years?

Almost correct. The last war-sized conflict China took part in was the 1979 Chinese-Vietnamese war [1]. That was 45 years ago. Battle-sized events between China and Vietnam have occurred up to 1991 [2], that would be up to 23 years ago. Skirmish-sized events with India are as recent as 2021. [3]. As for what occurs in Gaza, I agree. Bad stuff has been happening there. Going by the tonnage of things blowing up, Gaza is a gang shootout compared to Ukraine, though.

True.

Hunger for power would exist, but a critical feature that currently exists - the means of returning to power - would be absent.

Bribes would be a concern, so good pay and anti-corruption mechanicms would still be required.

• Because propaganda works. If propaganda didn’t work, companies would not advertise products and politicians wouldn’t run campaigns. Rich sponsors fund politicians who promise to look after their interests. Well-funded politicians run better campaigns and win.

• Because politicians are, nearly without exception, above middle class, if not outright rich. They won’t act too radically against their own class interests.

The only solution I know comes from ancient Athens. Sortition -> you hold a lottery to draw representatives. A few extremely stupid people will be drawn into parliament, but idiots are far better than sociopaths, and the current system gives undue representation to sociopaths (willing to climb over bodies if that gets them to power). If one then dislikes the idea of a considerable percentage of bumbling fools (as opposed to cunning predators) in parliament, one must feed everyone well, treat all childhood diseases and educate everyone as well as possible. As if their rational decisions were needed tomorrow.

Alternatively or additionally, I think oxygen plasma glows blue or green, because northern lights (near the poles, at least) are greenish.

None of these countries would permit an abortion at 28 weeks, let alone let her keep the babies remains.

The article sheds no light on why she needed a late-term abortion. If something is permissible and publicly funded, chances are a person gets it done early, in a clinic, without hesitation. In case of wanting an abortion, delay is harmful, having to travel, smuggle something or fear something (or gather money) is harmful. Also note: those countries have a separate schedule for normal and exceptional conditions. Which is generally not possible in a political environment that has banned abortion (some cities in Nebraska - yes, in the US, cities can regulate abortion, very strange for me). Some examples that I know of:

Estonia:

• under normal conditions, 12 weeks
• under exceptional conditions, 22 weeks (risk to health, severe foetal disease, raising the child is prevented by health or sanity, the pregnant is under 15 or over 45)

Finland:

• under normal conditions, 12 weeks
• under exceptional conditions, 20…24 weeks (foetal abnormality gives a limit of 24 weeks)

Latvia:

• under normal conditions, 12 weeks
• for medical reasons, 22 weeks