From the article:

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in response to Xinis’ ruling that the judge should “contact” the Salvadoran president “because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador.”

Leavitt earlier this week called Abrego Garcia a member of the “brutal and vicious” MS-13 gang and said he “will not be returning to our country.”

The government also appealed the decision immediately to the 4th Circuit.

Isn't this the case where the DOJ's argument is "Neither we nor the Salvadorans can find him"? With a sort of implicit "No one's actually keeping any records"?

Joel Kaplan, Chief Global Affairs Officer for Meta, announces:

By Monday afternoon, our fact-checking program in the US will be officially over. That means no new fact checks and no fact checkers. We announced in January we’d be winding down the program & removing penalties. In place of fact checks, the first Community Notes will start appearing gradually across Facebook, Threads & Instagram, with no penalties attached.

Finally an actual answer. Took enough to pry the answers out of you.

So, the whole issue is it is not fair the way they applied the tariffs. Poor countries with a high relative trade imbalance should have a break from what is imposed on the other countries.

For the most part, I agree with you on the very small ones like Cambodia. We are talking about such a relatively minor amount of trade for the US and because the country is so poor, they do not buy much. Also, there is little to no ability for the country to make changes that would make this "fairer". One size fits all strategies rarely fit the outliers.

As for the rest, please, if they used AI you would be railing against it like the those above and say he has no plan. If Trump did not impose the tariffs he said he would, you would say he caved to pressure and is waffling with no plan. If he did not apply the plan evenly, you would have said he randomly applied tariffs and has no plan.

There was no tariff plan you would have been okay with. Hell, I doubt there is much of anything President Trump could do that you would agree with.

But, at least, with effort we found something we agree with.

Whew, wasted way more time than I had hoped to have an actual conversation. Time to take a break from this place again....

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:dwaduijo6ngdgzmir5vovzrh/post/3llynh6uoyk2z?ref_src=embed&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com%252F2025%252F04%252Fmy-date-with-ted-bundy-is-not-going-as-well-as-i-had-every-reason-to-expect-it-would

Tech and Finance leaders are apparently going to go to Mar-A-Lago to try and read Trump the riot act and will get pushed under the buss.

Going around Derek for a bit, this equation and the results it produces are really bonkers.

Consider a couple of examples. First, Cambodia, which was given a 49% tariff rate. Cambodia is very poor, which means: a.) it doesn't buy much stuff from wealthy nations, including the U.S., because it can't afford to, and b.) its workers have very low wages, so they can make stuff cheap, which means they can sell a lot of stuff to us because we like to buy cheap things. So, according to Trump's data, Cambodia exported 12.66B worth of stuff, and imported around 0.32B. Using Trump's equation above, you'd do (.32B-12.66B)/12.66B, which gets you .975, which they presumably rounded to .98, then divided that by two, to get the "reciprocal" tariff rate of .49. In other word, because Cambodia is really poor, and can't buy stuff from us, but can sell us stuff cheap, we've imposed an almost 50% tariff on their goods. Will this compel Cambodia to become rich and start buying as much stuff from us as they sell to us? Only time will tell. Also, so much for buying cheap stuff from Cambodia.

It gets worse. Recall these are called reciprocal tariff rates, with the equation in Derek's link (which he hasn't read) actually supposed to show the tariff rate that we're reciprocating. But it's just a calculation of the trade deficit. So, using the silly equation, we're told that St. Pierre, a tiny island of fewer than 6k inhabitants with no actual tariffs has a 99% tariff rate on U.S. goods, meaning, because we divide that rate by two (see Derek's article, which he should read), our reciprocal tariff is 50%:

https://x.com/a60483647/status/1907845183762268378?t=2fDogTqNqbKsncntRHVoYg&s=19

But wait, what is the source of the trade deficit? Inhabitants bought some sort of equipment from the US, and wasn't working and needed to be replaced or repaired, so they returned it, the Trump administration used that return as an export to the U.S., and now they get a 50% tariff.

I was not joking when I said this is hardly better than using AI. Really, I think they'd have produced less ridiculous results if they'd just used AI instead of their silly little equation (from Derek's article, which he really should read before commenting about it).

Yes. The only good news is the darker ideas of over throwing the gov would require more organization than they have. This is chaos and incompetence, not fascism.