Why not use both? If your government requires KYC, you ain’t getting around that. They want to track crypto the same way they track other assets, and that will involve monitoring all the on/off ramps. But once you have crypto assets, you now have the freedom to transfer them wherever you want, including wallets and exchanges that are more open/have fewer documentation requirements.

However, this freedom still doesn’t exempt you from legal requirements, no matter how much bullshit you think they are. If the non-KYC exchange you transfer to happens to be under some sort of sanction, then you might get screwed if the authorities find out. Are they paying attention to you? Probably not. But it’s up to you to decide whether the potential penalty is worth the risk.

Which one? They both suck.

That seems excessive, they could have just fired him…

This may be a bit heavy-handed, but it is done for a reason. Trump wants to use “lawlessness” as an excuse to send troops in.

By implementing this curfew and making these arrests, the LAPD can demonstrate that it has the situation under control, and there is no need for the Feds to get involved. If California’s lawsuit against the Feds ends up working, and the court finds the troop deployment unlawful, this curfew enforcement might very well be the reason.

He even declared it an invasion of “military-aged men” at the time. He did that right around the time that the Supreme Court held that Trump couldn’t be held off the ballot for formenting insurrection.

I am confident that if that ruling went the other way, Abbot would have declared an invasion was in progress, that Democrats were aiding it, and thrown Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and every single Democrat off the ballot in Texas.

called it!

TACO trucks, even

Since when does Trump listen to scholars?

Trump won’t need to send them, Abbott would gladly send the Texas National Guard there himself

Most trades now are done by bots looking at ticker symbols, they don’t need human intervention. The human race can vanish from the Earth and the bots will keep trading as long as the datacenters have power.

That is a lot harder to do, within the bounds of the law at least.

Ironically, though, California is one of a small handful of states that allow for recall elections of all elected office holders, up to and including the Governor. Recall that Arnold Schwarzenegger became Governer there due to a recall election. So if his goal is to start ejecting Governors he doesn’t like, California is a good place to start.

But Newsom has already survived one recall attempt, and since he seems to be the Next One Up for Democrats to nominate in 2028, Trump may not be eager to run a recall campaign that might lose, because Newsom will remind everyone that he “beat Trump” on the campaign trail. (And there is no guarantee that Musk won’t start tossing money at Newsom, who is enough of a schemer to accept it.)

Walz hit a nerve when he called them all weird. Because they are! We don’t need to double down on memes, but we do need to explain, in simple terms, why Trumpism is so awful.

And I don’t say “simple” because people are dumb, I say it because people are busy and don’t always have time to think things through.

Too bad Musk already has all of our data

I’d love it if you were right, and this is what breaks Trump’s stranglehold on the electorate. but the advantage Trump and his friends have is that they have no shame, and lie with impunity. Those lies are attractive. Even now, I am reading that Trump released a statement saying that the troops are quelling the unrest in LA, while the Mayor says no troops have arrived. Which do you think folks in the Conservative Cinematic Universe believe?

It’s hard to break these folks out of their bubble when the side pushing the bubble can lie without consequences. Their opposition has the burden of logical consistency to overcome.

The pattern I see is that most on “the right” here will not be able to break out of their disinformation bubble unless it affects them personally. So only the small portion who have seen someone they know (“one of the good ones”) harassed by ICE will respond.

I mean, this is technically exactly that, albeit in a much more limited scope.

The last time this was invoked was in 1965, during civil rights demonstrations in Alabama. But the Federal Government sent in the troops to protect the demonstrators from their local police.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/march-20/lbj-sends-federal-troops-to-alabama

This time it’s the other way around.

This is the language from the law that would permit the President to mobilize National Guard troops in a state without its Governor’s consent.

Edited to add: found the law here, it’s small and easy to read: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleE-partII-chap1211-sec12406.htm

If it is invoked, it says:

Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States

But I parse that “shall” to mean the Governor is forced to comply.

Each country sets their own laws, so it’s ultimately up to the destination country. When an ordinary citizen visits another country, they have to meet requirements for entry, but countries can negotiate any terms their government allows them to. So as long as the US government works out terms with the other country in aadvance, they can send anyone.

The US government does have an advantage other countries lack: we have military bases all over the world, including a lot of “shithole countries”. There are separate agreements negotiated over the use of that land, but I bet that the US can send whoever they want there without declaring to fhe local authorities who they are. Then the US can “conveniently” lose track of them and… poof! No more undesirables…

There is an important and subtle distinction to be made here. A lot of noise is made calling people who are here without authorization “illegals”, but that’s not always true. Being present in the country without authorization is not automatically a criminal matter. It is true that many of the avenues for being here without authorization (crossing illegally, overstaying a visa) also violate the law, but that is handled as a separate matter.

Since immigration status is mostly a civil matter, ot a criminal one, these immigration courts are not under the Judicial Branch, like criminal courts are. They are actually “administrative courts” which are part of the Department of Justice, under the President, just like ICE is.

So while the courts occasionally provide a check on this Predident’s power, the immigration courts never will. They ultimately report to the President through the DoJ, and the President has much more direct influence over it. So it doesn’t surprise me that these people are stuck in a Kafkaesque hell, where ICE ignore their pleas that they are citizens and says “tell it to the judge”, and when they finally get to the judge they get ignored.

Is it any wonder that Trump was so dead set against the immigration bill last year? He needed the process to stay chaotic, in order to have a better chance of winning.