So now the US president is openly threatening US citizens with denied entry at the border? Am I getting that right?
this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
88 points (100.0% liked)
Entertainment
5034 readers
9 users here now
Movies, television and Broadway.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sadly, yes.
This is exactly what he promised to be, but nearly anyone that voted for this (maybe didn't (most were warned and screamed 'lies') ) read the fine print, they keep swearing it's going to be ok.
There's no way to back down from being a dictator on day one unless you abdicate the throne.
It doesn't seem to have happened willingly, and peacefully since the days of Rome in antiquity.
We only have the history books to verify that even those were truly voluntary and not a forced move.
Well, technically... we have an example in modern Spain of an (almost) peaceful and willing transition without abdication:
- Franco was a dictator
- He appointed the King to follow in his steps
- Right after Franco died, the King did a 180 and facilitated a democratic constitutional referendum
- The majority, approved a democratic constitution, leaving the Executive power split in two: the King remains the leader of the military (in time of war, and mostly in name otherwise), while an elected President is the leader of the rest.
Other than a failed coup attempt by a faction of the military who wanted to go back to the previous system, it was a reasonably peaceful transition from full dictatorship, to a "parliamentary monarchy".
It can be done, if people are willing.
(PS: an abdication came much later, because of some not fully transparent money deals and tax evasion schemes, leaving his son as the new King)
You're using almost to get your argument across. Almost to the point of adding to my point.
Tl;dr Dictator 1 is dying, and on the way out, without full abdication crowned a king, who stepped down to crown a prince.
They seem to be a parliamentary monarchy.
If anyone wants to know more read these-
he also updated, and said you voted for what i campaigned, on deal with it.
In other words - You voted for me, even if the will of the people changes - pound sand.
Bruce better immigrate somewhere that has no extradition treaty with the US.
Who would ship a fugitive back to us? The tariffs are too high.
OK, that's quality.
TIL Trump somehow knows the word "ought." Immediately stumbles with "into" though ...
It reads like written by AI: some standard keywords, key phrases, an overall sentiment, and a few out-of-style words that sneaked in.
It's weird to me that at some point since elementary school, "sneak" became a weak verb. We used "snuck" in such a case. "Snook" was also an option in other cases, but now it's "all sneaked, all the time."
Hm, good point. I generally go on feeling, from an English as an Nth Language point of view... and my subjective feeling is that "snuck" has more of a "participle" meaning, while "sneaked" has more of a "past tense" meaning.
According to AI Overview, there might also be some EN-US vs EN-GB at play:
"Snuck" is an irregular past tense: It's an alternative form that has gained widespread acceptance, especially in North American English.
"Snuck" is sometimes considered nonstandard in British English: While it's increasingly common in British English, it's still often seen as nonstandard in formal writing.
That would match the Wiktionary entry: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/sneaked
I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT THIS EARLIER.
Specifically, (as a native English speaker) my gut is to do the same thing (participle vs. past-simple) with irregular verbs such as this (others being dealt, learnt, spelt, etc.).
I couldn't sworn I read something about that usage when I was a teenager but everything I look up regarding them, now, chalks them up to being just an EN-US and EN-GB difference but, otherwise, entirely equivalent.
I have a strange idiolect. "Dealt" seems correct, but "learnt" and "spelt" do not. Neither would lead me to raise an eyebrow; I'd assume I'm interacting with a user of British English.
To be fair (according to everything I've been able to find), you ought to be as, apparently, they're more favored, over there. I dunno; I do suspect I picked it up from reading and The Wind in the Willows and The Once and Future King were favorites of mine, in childhood, so maybe that's it.
Springsteen should double down.
"I heard some overgrown pumpkin with tiny hands wants me to shut up! Fuck that moron!"
See what Rump does then.
Bruce Springsteen is welcome in Europe, to visit and enjoy freedom of speech here.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Bad idea to threaten a musical legend. Music is a natural gathering point, and it is a perfect vehicle for propaganda. Musical movements have helped turn the political tide in many revolutions. Music was a huge factor in ending the Vietnam War.