●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byTheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 ) writes:
There are a lot of programs that the DOE administers. They'll continue as Trump cannot stop them. That's most of the money.
This is not the Carter DOE. Ed in the Fed has existed for over a century. They just reorganized in the Carter years.
The DOE did NCLB and other fuckery, so I won't especially miss it.
The real issues are Trump violating laws through his cuts and withholding, and spineless Congress allowing him to do so. Spineless on both sides of the aisle.
bydawg1234 ( 6925868 ) writes:
orange man bad
leon/elmo bad
bybug_hunter ( 32923 ) writes:
Trump violates the consitution for government spending - often gets confused and lies about it aka condoms for Gaza, has to rehire the majority people he fired due to legal reasons or because the people are national security, asks judges who maintain the constitution to be impeached, threaten peaceful countries such as Greenland, and exporting people to foreign prisons without due process. This doesn't even scratch the surface of the negative disruption caused in his 2nd term so far.
Trumper: Oh so you mean your entire argument is orange man bad?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byjonbryce ( 703250 ) writes:
You could argue that Greenland is a country in the same way that Scotland is.
"Country", at least in British English has a wider range of meanings than the equivalent words in some other languages.
bysg_oneill ( 159032 ) writes:
If its not "threatening greenland", then its "threatening denmark", which is just as cartoonishly evil.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byallcoolnameswheretak ( 1102727 ) writes:
He's also threatening Canada, which is the friendliest, most peaceful neighbour a country could hope for.
At the same time he's friendly towards Russia, who is the worst, most aggressive neighbour you could possibly get.
As Darth Putin would say, Russia became the biggest country in the world by peacefully defending itself in other people's countries.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bySpitemaster ( 1232016 ) writes:
Tariffs aside - Trump has spoken many times about how he wants Canada to become the 51st state. He's mentioned attempting to destroy Canada's economy to coerce us to become the 51st state. To quote Canadian MP Charlie Angus:
Well, I think Marco Rubio probably needs to be sent back to school because when you say that someone doesn’t have a right to have a country, that’s an act of war. When you rip up, arbitrarily, trade agreements and threaten and say you’re going to break a country, that’s an act of war. And Canadians have responded in kind.
bycbeaudry ( 706335 ) writes:
You actually think republicans want another California sized lefty state?
2 more democrat senators
50+ more democrat congressmen?
Its trolling and negotiations.
He doesnt want to annex Canada. But a complete rewrite of border commerce is probably what he wants.
bytsqr ( 808554 ) writes:
Trump has spoken many times about how he wants Canada to become the 51st state.
Yeah, that's what he says, but what he really wants is to make Canada a US Territory like Puerto Rico. That way he can exploit the Canadian resources without worrying about how the Canadian people might vote.
bySpitemaster ( 1232016 ) writes:
Suppose that I grant to you that Trump has no desire to conquer Canada. I don't think that's remotely true, but whatever.
It's still an indisputable fact that Trump has made many threats against Canada.
byserviscope_minor ( 664417 ) writes:
But a complete rewrite of border commerce is probably what he wants.
Who the fuck knows what he wants. It's his border commerce treaty remember.
bycbeaudry ( 706335 ) writes:
And?
BTW, I'm Canadian. I think our governement needs some threatening. To be put in its place, open up actual free trade instead of Canada protectionism and corruption.
We are a socialist cesspool, managed by communist retards.
For fucks sake, we had 0.5% GDP growth per capita over the last 10 years. Almost the lowest in the whole OECD.
Pretty much 20% less than the US over the same period of time.
NO ONE wants to do business in Canada anymore.
So yeah, I welcome the threats. Things need to change. Because at th
bycbeaudry ( 706335 ) writes:
Yes, his treaty which he had to compromise on in his first mandate.
He had to step back for 4 years and now he is back.
Had time to reflect and he obviously doesnt like it.
So its renegotiation time. We'll see where the chips fall.
One thing is for sure, our politicians know VERY well what he wants.
byserviscope_minor ( 664417 ) writes:
Had time to reflect and he obviously doesnt like it.
Is there any evidence he even knows what's in it?
One thing is for sure, our politicians know VERY well what he wants.
No they don't. No one does. His reign is characterised by chaotic randomness.
bySebby ( 238625 ) writes:
So its renegotiation time.
Except that there's a minimum of time that needs to pass from the last signing before the trade agreement can be renegotiated again, by law. That time hasn't elapsed yet.
But please, continue telling us how clueless you are...
byPainted ( 1343347 ) writes:
As a fellow Canadian, you're full of shit. The fact you think the Liberal party are socialist *and* communist pretty much proves you don't know what you're talking about.
I'd bet you're a UCP idiot from Alberta, who slurped up what Danielle Smith was turding out this week.
bycbeaudry ( 706335 ) writes:
On March 6, 2025, he announced exemptions for USMCA-compliant goods from a 25% tariff until April 2, 2025.
Additionally, Trump has expressed intentions to leverage the USMCA’s 2026 joint review process (under Article 34.7) to renegotiate aspects of the agreement, as noted in his statements from October 2024 about invoking the six-year renegotiation provision.
Renegotiation, can be done at any time, best done in advance.
As a Canadian, I fear more our politicians response to this trade and tarriff negotia
byTarlus ( 1000874 ) writes:
Its trolling and negotiations.
Those two things are antithetical. It's not a tactic, it's not diplomacy and it's not good politics. And if it's a joke, it isn't clever or funny.
bycbeaudry ( 706335 ) writes:
Lets see:
- Lockdowns
- Travel restrictions
- Emergencies Act invokment and freezing bank accounts of citizens
- UBI law proposals on the books (more than one)
- CERB paiments
- Solution to every problem is spending more money (money printing, tool #1 of Marxists)
- Highest taxes and wealth redistribution policies
- Fake Green policies to steel more money from its citizens
- Price controls
- Production quotas
- Free speech controls
- Subsidizing of the media to control the narrative (plus latest bribe is to promise dou
bycbeaudry ( 706335 ) writes:
Of course you have the final say on what is or isnt a good tactic, diplomacy or good politics.
I'm sure he will correct course soon, since you are the authority on this subject.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
You don't know what communism is and you use hard r as an insult. Why should anyone listen?
byquax ( 19371 ) writes:
Just move South then. You won't be missed.
byquax ( 19371 ) writes:
He wants to renegotiate the trade treaty that he signed himself last time he was in power.
Why should Canada trust any future agreement with him? His word and signature are obviously worthless.
byquax ( 19371 ) writes:
"Canadian"
bycbeaudry ( 706335 ) writes:
State ownership of energy
State ownership of alcohol sales
State control of health care
State control of daycares (Quebec at a least)
State subsidies to corporations
State control of money supply (#1 most important Marxist tenant for control of the population)
Redistribution of wealth
UBI plans in the works
CBDC plans in the works
Yeah... I think we are on our way there.
However, if you require us to already be 100% full blown communist before anyone raises its voice... I'll just have to point you to an image of a fr
byaxis_omega ( 771398 ) writes:
I don't know where you live but Canada is among the best place to live. Just go and search for Global Liveability Ranking 2024.
Anyway I won't try to convince you, this would be wasting all our time. You clearly believe we are the worst and you are drinking the Putin's cool aid
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Authoritarianism is not communism.
The reason we don't use "retard" as an insult any more is that it was used to insult developmentally disabled people, and the implication of the person using it is that someone is developmentally disabled, which should not be used as an insult. Further, I see no evidence that you have a brain, so appealing to that doesn't help your argument.
bycbeaudry ( 706335 ) writes:
We do use retard. Its used all the time.
Only politicaly correct woke retards like you like to make up rules no one has to follow but you.
P.s. The history lesson wasnt necessary, I explained above, only retards like you would still refer to people with down syndrome as retarded. You seem to not be a decent human.
byWaffleMonster ( 969671 ) writes:
The reason we don't use "retard" as an insult any more is that it was used to insult developmentally disabled people
This is utter nonsense. I use retard as an insult and know a number of people who do as well. Nobody calls retarded people retards to insult retards. This just isn't a thing and retards don't even care anyway.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
We do use retard. Its used all the time.
Yes, by absolute shitbags.
The history lesson wasnt necessary
It clearly was, shitbag.
byLohrno ( 670867 ) writes:
That would only matter if our system wasn't broken.
●beneath your current threshold.
●th your current threshold.
bydskoll ( 99328 ) writes:
Captured very nicely in the cover of Private Eye [files.mastodon.social]
●th your current threshold.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
And was named Greenland by the Viking Erik Thorvaldsson, named Erik the Red, likely due to hair and beard color.
He was a Norwegian from Iceland and the father of Leif Erikson (Leif the Lucky) who settled Vinland, which is probably North America.
byunrtst ( 777550 ) writes:
And Erik supposedly named it Grnland in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers, though it's mostly covered in ice.
And every time I'm reminded of that, it makes me question this bit:
named Erik the Red, likely due to hair and beard color.
If we go by how he named Greenland, he was probably bald.
byunrtst ( 777550 ) writes:
... and slashdot ate the UTF8 characters in Groenland/Greenland in my comment :-)
bydevilops ( 6989508 ) writes:
that's not an argument, that's a petty technicality just FYI
byDripdry ( 1062282 ) writes:
Uh, you forgot about Poland
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Trumper: Oh so you mean your entire argument is orange man bad?
The orange man is bad. Fascism is bad, ummmmk.
●r current threshold.
bydbialac ( 320955 ) writes:
condoms for Gaza
The correction was that it was $60,000,000 per year, but not Gaza, it was for a global program. Still, it circles around to, why am I paying for this?
exporting people to foreign prisons without due process.
There are a lot of illegal immigration cases that require no due process and people can be expelled immediately. Quite a number of the people on those flights qualified for expulsion in that way. The questions are, first, can the Alien Enemies Act be applied in our current situation, and second, is a plane that has left US territory subject to US courts. I thi
bylucifuge31337 ( 529072 ) writes:
You are paying for it because it is a part of how we gained consensus agree upon power in the world for the last 80 years since WW2 ya mook. I know most of you magas are too dense for nuance or uderstanding any transaction having exactly one winner and one loser, so you'll have to just accepts that the adults in the room know better.
bydbialac ( 320955 ) writes:
If you had $36,000,000,000,000 in debt, wouldn't you, as the adult in the room, start asking questions about where your money is going? Along with that, wouldn't you also ask why your revenue (taxes) aren't bringing in what they should be? As a politically independent, I can figure out that both questions need answers and not see it as a black and white issue. Finally, I'm not clear as to why you want to make America terrible instead of going with what we'd found to work in the past.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
You lost me at "as the adult in the room" which dump has never ever been, except perhaps when he was raping a 13 year old.
byvux984 ( 928602 ) writes:
If you had $36,000,000,000,000 in debt, wouldn't you, as the adult in the room, start asking questions about where your money is going?
Yes I would. But lets put that in perspective.
If your company had $36,000,000 in debt, would you tell all your employees, vendors, clients, frenemies, and everyone else who would listen how you you were spending $50 on condom giveaways, and how proud you were of eliminating this "waste"? If you could eliminate 1 program like this per day for entire 4 year term, holidays and weekends included! It would reduce your debt from $36,000,000 to a mere $35,927,000! Problem solved.
That's how much this condom program
byBitmanhome ( 254112 ) writes:
I'll take a risk on responding genuinely, just in case you are also doing so.
The main problem is that the discussion above you is about the specific cost of a specific program. But you've backed out of this discussion with the abstract "ask questions about where your money is going." Yes sir, we're already doing that, we invite you to join us.
The second problem with your argument is that when we need to cut expenditures, we start with the largest ones ones first. That gives us a chance at large savings for
bytragedy ( 27079 ) writes:
DOGE itself has fallen into this trap, cutting small programs while ignoring the larger expenses.
They're mostly focused on cutting the federal workforce, which is something like 3-4% of the budget. Of course, the real reason they are doing that is that it's an excuse to destroy the departments that those employees work for by abusing an authority they sort of have to achieve something that is completely beyond the President's authority.
byBitmanhome ( 254112 ) writes:
The reason is twofold: First is mount low-value attacks on the law by breaking the law over things that aren't important. When judges push back, they know who to attack and remove.
The other reason for closing departments with no planning nor warning is to create chaos, and the chaos will give them the excuse to cancel the 2026 elections. Cuz you know they're totally cancelling the elections, it's right there in the playbook.
The whole budget thing is a distraction.
bytragedy ( 27079 ) writes:
I certainly can't help noticing that the ones who stopped the January sixers the last time were the capitol police and the DC police. The capitol police are, ultimately, potentially indirectly under the control of Trump already (controlled by the Architect of the Capitol which Presidential appointee and an appointee of the House and an appointee of the Senate). So we need to watch for those being replaced by Trump loyalists (not sure about the House Sergeant at arms, but the Senate Sergeant at arms is defin
bydbialac ( 320955 ) writes:
The second problem with your argument is that when we need to cut expenditures, we start with the largest ones ones first. That gives us a chance at large savings for a small effort. $60m is a very small expense by US government standards, so you're point doesn't really apply here.
That little stuff adds up quickly. Its called the long tail. There's more effort, but a lot of money there. Google did not start up by having an ad network primarily for big sites, but small ones.
bytragedy ( 27079 ) writes:
wouldn't you ... start asking questions about where your money is going?
Yes, we're always asking those questions. When a tiny fraction of it turns out to be going to help prevent deadly diseases from spreading and mutating I then say "money well spent". When I find out that it's being used to pay for giant TVs in the offices of uncollected deep state bureaucrats to play video games on (even when that is also a tiny fraction) I want to know how that's justified.
Along with that, wouldn't you also ask why your revenue (taxes) aren't bringing in what they should be?
Well, I know several of the reasons for that. One of them is that the enforcement parts of the IRS are under resourced
●neath your current threshold.
bytsqr ( 808554 ) writes:
Still, it circles around to, why am I paying for this?
Maybe because helping a poor African nation trying to mitigate an AIDS epidemic is the right thing to do? $60 million is $0.31 per tax return filed in 2024, by the way.
bytragedy ( 27079 ) writes:
MAGAs seem to have an aversion to the "right thing". A slightly better argument (which is usually ignored anyway) is the simple fact that the nations of the world do not live in isolation and infectious disease is, in fact infectious. Increase in cases in any nation will eventually hit other nations like the US. Not to mention that it provides opportunities for new strains to arise, possibly ones that current treatments don't work on. So there are purely selfish reasons to want to prevent the spread of HIV.
bytragedy ( 27079 ) writes:
There are a lot of illegal immigration cases that require no due process and people can be expelled immediately. Quite a number of the people on those flights qualified for expulsion in that way
They qualified for indeterminate detention in a prison in a third country that they're not even from? No, sorry, immigration law may allow for the expulsion of some of them (even that is dubious without due process) but essentially throwing them into an oubliette? I mean, can you even tell me what their current status is while imprisoned in an El Salvadoran prison? The US might be able to kick them out but, once they are out, what responsibilities does it have? If it's none, then what responsibilities does
byLamboAlpha ( 840950 ) writes:
I will bite...
condoms for Gaza
The correction was that it was $60,000,000 per year, but not Gaza, it was for a global program. Still, it circles around to, why am I paying for this?
Not for condoms, but "Health Service". https://apnews.com/article/gaz... [apnews.com]
exporting people to foreign prisons without due process.
There are a lot of illegal immigration cases that require no due process and people can be expelled immediately. Quite a number of the people on those flights qualified for expulsion in that way. The questions are, first, can the Alien Enemies Act be applied in our current situation, and second, is a plane that has left US territory subject to US courts. I think the first is a bit of a stretch, but regarding the latter one, I think, is in some cases "no". A good and clearer example of this is, if you're on a train that crosses into Mexico and has the same crew driving the train, are you still subject to US jurisdiction? Definitely not. Anything would have to be co-ordinated with Mexican officials and performed by Mexican officials. I don't know how this would apply to aircraft, though. Much of the time of the flights were over Mexico and Mexican waters.
Even if the plane was in Mexico, it is still US flagged carrier. It has to abide by US law.
https://www.runsensible.com/bl... [runsensible.com].
Additionally, some of the people on the plane already had pending court hearing scheduled and were still deported.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politic... [go.com]
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p... [pbs.org] And, I believe you can still fight the deportation or internment camps, like people did in WWII.
https://www.ilrc.org/sites/def... [ilrc.org]
Also, were people from Venezuela sent to El Salvador?
byjriding ( 1076733 ) writes:
Again this is just take what the government performs at cost, and privatize it.
Because when you add profit the cost goes down.
smh
byshanen ( 462549 ) writes:
Mostly concurrence though your style is hard to follow. In the form of a joke: "We don't need no stinkin' laws" should be the YOB motto. The problem is that it's too long. The YOBsters only have the attention span to read a hat. If the motto needs an entire t-shirt then it's too much for them.
I want to add a bit about the stinkin' hypocrisy. The line-item veto is not a new idea. And the Supreme Court already ruled it was unconstitutional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] for all the details. But that presi
● beneath your current threshold.
● your current threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes.
-- Mickey Mouse
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...