Donald Trump’s bruising return to the White House has sent many longtime foreign allies scrambling to get their distance, and according to a new piece from The Atlantic, that distance will last long after Trump is gone.
Trump’s second term as president has been marked by notable and widespread disrespect toward nations once seen as close U.S. allies. Between his attempts to level massive tariffs against nearly every nation in the world and his frequent breaches of diplomatic norms, Trump has created a hostile global environment in which allies no longer feel safe trusting in the stability of the U.S.
In a new piece for The Atlantic on Tuesday, staff writer Vivian Salama argued that this new dynamic, in which the nations of the world are working to establish a safe distance from the U.S., is bound to become the new normal for years to come, even after Trump leaves office and is potentially replaced by a more traditional, dependable administration.
Let’s take a look at Justice Clarence Thomas. Conservative billionaires have treated Thomas to “at least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.”
He should be impeached, but that check has failed.
You have an inability to accept that some checks have already failed
Judges who were not under the pay of Conservative billionaires disagree with you.
They do not disagree with me. You can just go and read the fourteenth amendment. It’s not like a lost document. It says nothing about abortion. Roe V Wade was a net positive for us as a society, but it was never a solution.
It hasn’t. He’s still open to impeachment.
You have an inability to prove any have
It says nothing about personal computers but privacy still applies.
He is still a judge. Check has failed.
No it doesn’t. The protections for personal computers comes from the fourth amendment. The fourteenth amendment just acts as a bridge to the fourth for the states. Likewise if we actually add an amendment to the constitution protecting abortion access, the fourteenth would apply it to the states. But the fourteenth doesn’t either on its own. You continue to prove you don’t understand any of the things you’re talking about.
Can’t have. He can still be impeached, and there is an interest among opposition government. The check still exists.
Your argument is that the word abortion doesn’t explicitly appear. Computers are not mentioned in either the 4th or 14th amendment.
And until he has been we can confidently state that this check has failed.
Incorrect, the 4th amendment states:
“Effects” mean personal property. Since computers are your personal property they are explicitly protected in the fourth amendment. There’s no such provision in the constitution that explicitly protects abortion access the way the fourth protects computers.
Because that remediation exists and has not been in any way defeated, we can confidently say that check has not failed.
Ctrl + f “abortion”. Not there
Ctrl + f “computer”. Not there
Argument falsified.
Judge Clarence is still sitting. The check has not succeeded. Therfore the check has failed.
I’m sorry, I can’t make this simpler for you to understand.
That’s a a very childlike understanding of language, but in the fourth amendment if you Ctrl + f “effects” , you’ll get a result. And a computer is an effect. The fourth amendment is explicit, all of your effects are protected. Unless you can make the argument that a computer you bought and paid for that you own is not your personal property, and therefore not an effect, your argument here has failed.
And Congress has the power to impeach and the senate has the power to convict, which we may very well see soon. Since this check has not yet failed, it hasn’t failed. Simple as.
Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points