CheshireCat

Yes. People from East Berlin were because any indiscretion could land you in jail. But border officers also had permission to shoot to kill. There was a piece of grassland between the East Berlin border and the wall that was called the death strip. I think for people from West Berlin, it was more that East Berlin officers could make your life difficult. They could detain you for hours at the border just because they felt like it. Sometimes, they would shut down the border for a while just to back up traffic or they'd be deliberately slow. At the same time, there was this weird "we know what you're doing but we pretend we don't" attitude. For example, people from West Berlin weren't supposed to have passports. West Berlin issued passports regardless. (But if we wanted to travel internationally, we could only travel by plane because you did not want to be caught with a passport traveling into East Germany). My grandparents both worked for the RIAS (Radio in the American Sector). My granddad was a driver, so, he crossed the border frequently and the border officers knew him. But when he traveled privately, he couldn't say that he worked for the Americans. So, the border officers knew he wasn't telling the truth when he was asked about his job but pretended not to. As a former tourist, I wouldn't say that I was afraid of CBP, however, I can't say that immigrating to the US was relaxing after 9/11. When you travel as a tourist, CBP tends to treat you as guilty until you have proven your innocence. Which, based on Berlin's experience, I consider a huge waste of money. If people were able to build around 70 tunnels in a city like Berlin, what do officials think happens along a wall that would run mostly through the desert? I find that sad, however, I also think it shows where some of the failure lies. I don't know whose failure but it sounds like there needed to be public conversations that never happened. I don't know enough about this election cycle to have an opinion either way. The bits that I saw felt like it was 2016 all over again and I didn't have the mental capacity to watch it unfold and not be able to do anything about it. I guess, there were a few things that should probably be looked into. Didn't Musk offer voters money in one state or something? Well, Germans were aware of what was happening. But fear is a powerful motivator. Getting caught doing the right thing meant either prison or death. If someone built a facility somewhere in Wyoming, Montana, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, the Dakotas... would we really know without a whistle blower? That sounds scary! I agree that liberals' opinion of electric vehicles hasn't changed just because their opinion of Musk might have changed (I think many people had started to dislike Musk's cars before the election because he'd kind of dropped the ball when it came to innovation. He'd been the first and then missed that the competition had caught up. From what I understand, this is how we ended up with the cybertruck). However, what makes you believe that Trump supporters can't understand it? Additionally, the US also denied at least one ship with Jewish refugees to dock. (On a side note, Germans are taught that WWII started with Germany's invasion of Poland). Where is that information coming from, though? Was it reported by reliable media outlets or is it speculation?

It's possible. For me, it wasn't about her prospects but that it was anyone's guess if her House seat would stay blue or flip if she didn't run. It did stay blue, still, to me, it looks like her career path mattered more to her than the importance of keeping her seat blue. I like Adam Schiff but I definitely didn't like what he did during the primary. I'm kind of disappointed in him in that regard and wasn't nearly as excited about him winning than I would have been before the primary. I agree. I also think that not every Republican is the same even though the ones in Congress currently act like they are. But I'd say the McCarthy Speaker circus from a couple of years ago showed that there are differences, and I think both parties have enough politicians and supporters to create two parties each. It kind of feels like in the US, the parties form the coalition before the election whereas in Germany, it's formed after the election. I believe the latter is healthier for democracy as it makes things less polarizing. It doesn't create an either-or situation from the get-go. I think there are so many different issues with the media... Anyone being able to get a press pass is an issue but so is the obsessiveness with both-sideism. I get that it's a difficult line to walk, still, it's not the media's fault how the candidates behave and stand for. And if they could spend hours reporting on policy for one candidate and one outrage after another for the other then I think this is what they should do. I believe this is their job: report what they observe, and not be worried about how much of the coverage appears to be negative and how much appears to be positive and report on one issue for 600 days straight just to balance the scale. I'd answer that with hard to tell. There don't seem to be many who investigate to write articles but I'm assuming there's some investigating that they do for their books. ... I think that's another issue with journalism: holding back for books. Also, the owners and the money. I think newspapers/media outlets have always been owned by people with means but it seems like many are currently owned by people who have an agenda other than reporting the news. I see social media as another issue. It encourages reading only the headlines and it's easy to spread misinformation as well as incomplete information. Polls showed that a majority was blaming Trump and Republicans. I remember that they labeled the last shutdown a Trump shutdown and it worked, so, I don't see why it wouldn't have worked this time around again. No, we won't. I've just heard people say occasionally that Obama becoming president was too much for the country to handle, so, I'm curious how much truth there is to that and if true, if a woman becoming president would have had the same effect. In some aspects it seems that the country is less ready for a female president than it was for a Black president considering that two have tried and failed against Trump. Then again, I think there are contributing factors that weren't present in 2008, so, I find it hard to tell what the country's sentiment actually is. This isn't new, though. It has always been the case that CBP has the final word. Even when you have an immigrant visa that permits you to obtain a Green Card, you can technically still be turned around at immigration. Likewise, even after you passed your citizenship interview and are scheduled for the oath ceremony, they can still tell you no when you show up for the oath ceremony. Enforcement has also always depended on who's president. Usually, CBP is less friendly when a Republican is in office. However, it's never been as extreme as it is now. I only recall the traffic jams you inevitably ended up in when leaving West Berlin but my parents always said that CBP isn't all that different from former GDR border officers. The current events remind me a lot of what I heard about how the GDR officers operated.

I meant to include this in my previous post but it got lost. Anyway, this - if he decides to violate the Constitution and then defies the court order, what then? - is the question that I've been asking since I realized that Republicans weren't going to help stop Trump should he violate the Constitution and defy the courts during his first term and the people I was talking to kept reassuring me that the US had strong institutions and a Constitution that has endured and whatnot. I think it was bound to happen and I find it frustrating that Democrats don't seem to be prepared for this. They had four years to work with experts on authoritarianism and it doesn't look like a single one of them did. Instead, they seem completely unprepared for a president who defies the courts. I'm under the impression that as much as they warned of it, they needed to see it before they believed it. A friend said that they wake up every morning, wondering what Trump did again. I don't. I wake up every morning wondering what is done about what he has done again and who will rise up to the moment and become the leader that I think that we all need. (Or leaders, because I think we need a number of them, in a variety of places, like in Congress, in journalism, to lead movements/protests etc).

I agree. "Fortunately", we'll have primaries, so, I doubt that a woman will emerge as the front runner. But, hopefully, there'll be plenty of women candidates again, at least. It's too bad that Biden was as old as he was when he became president because in an ideal world (well, an ideal current world with our circumstances, not an ideal ideal world), he would have gotten re-elected then resigned after 2 years or so to demonstrate that a woman can actually be president. I sometimes wonder if Clinton would have had a better chance in 2008. The media landscape was still different, there weren't any emails yet and Russia wouldn't have interfered. At the same time, the opponent would have been different, too. On the one hand, it's crossed my mind, too, because the media keeps telling me that Republicans are more likely to go vote. So, if Republicans are less likely to stay home then it makes sense. On the other hand, I wonder if they'd also turn out for a female candidate. On another forum I'm on, they have an emoji that's running away screaming. I'd kind of like it now... If Trump manages to eliminate birthright citizenship (I have no idea how likely it is, but, apparently, he keeps trying) then I'm not sure what would stop him from changing that as well. Although, if he manages to eliminate birthright citizenship, I think he'll likely eliminate term limits before he eliminates that only US born citizens can become president. This is what's been puzzling me, too. Yes, Republican emails were hacked, too, back in 2016 and, although, they claimed they were only old emails, old emails can contain "kompromat" as well. But I don't think that there'd be something about everyone in those emails. So, I thought that it was power, that Republicans are so desperate to be in power and have power, that they were willing to go along with it all. During Trump's first term, it made sense. Now that Trump's slowly stripping Congress of power by disregarding Congress' authority when he wants to, it doesn't make sense anymore, though. So, why are they going along with it? Have they not realized that Trump's rendering them powerless? Or is it something else? I can't make sense of it. I didn't know that until I read your posts. It's a pretty compelling argument and it makes it look like Democrats couldn't win no matter what. Do I think that justifies the vote? I don't know. The vote was still very, very bad. Then again, were there any good choices? I liked Harris initially but felt she had difficulties defining herself as a candidate. This time around, though, I felt I was seeing a completely different person. His vote surprised me as well. Two thoughts: I absolutely loved Walz as a choice for VP and I'm mourning the what could have been of him as VP as much as I'm mourning the what could have been of Harris as POTUS. I also understand why he said what he said because blaming voters won't yield any results. Still, it upset me that he said the other day that it's on them (he and Harris) that voters thought Harris and Trump were one and the same. Yes, the media could have done a better job and I think that much of what's happening in politics can actually be traced back to how the media's shifted to access journalism and is prioritizing ratings and being first over actual reporting. But the information was obviously out there, otherwise, no one would have had access to it, and voters have responsibilities, too. So, I don't agree with Walz absolving voters of any responsibility. The second thought is that I saw a number of pundits and journalists criticize (although, the way some put it, it was borderline shaming) Harris for reaching out to GOP voters instead of the base after the election loss. Now that Walz and Sanders are doing it, the same people (literally) are applauding the efforts. Huh? Which one is it? A great strategy or the mistake that cost Democrats the election? I think elections have to happen (I think someone told me that on a different forum back in 2018 when I voiced my disagreement with Pelosi's "we need to defeat him at the ballot box" attitude), however, Russia has elections, too and we all know what they're worth. My first thought when reading this was: isn't it? Yes, the electoral college is the root of all evil and there have been calls by Congress to get rid of it. But how much did the public support it? How much has the public pushed for establishing a strong, third or even fourth party? How much support is the public giving to that? I felt like back in 2016, Sanders was in the perfect position to split from Democrats and create a third party that would have been competitive. But it would have needed to happen right after the election so that he would have had enough time build a party that would have been competitive in 2020 and it would have needed to happen in agreement with the Republicans that they do the same. So, yeah... It was unlikely to happen. But my point is that I think the push for a viable third party needs to come from the public because it makes elections so much harder for politicians and I think they're all the same in that regard. The easier it is to get into office, the better. I wanted to get excited about him during the 2020 primaries but couldn't. There's just something about him that can't hold my interest. I didn't like that in a political environment where every House seat matters and after barely winning her district the previous election, she decided to run for Senate. I guess, in some aspects, all politicians are the same, no matter what they say.

Late answer 'cause I'm a slow writer (and my tendency to re-write and re-write what I've re-written and possibly re-write that doesn't help either 🙃) Anyway, I’ve never been under the impression that the US were invested in fracturing Europe. I don’t think they had a reason to because they were more or less aligned in their ways of life and goals. I can't even say that I was under the impression that Russia was actively invested in fracturing Europe. From where I’m sitting it looks more like they were waiting and watching and when a possibility presented itself (with Brexit), they took it. I'd say, the same happened with the US. They saw an opening after the Obama presidency and jumped on it. (I suppose that's what you get when you put a spy in charge? They're tacticians and used to playing the long game). While Russia now seems to fan the flames they ignited, it doesn't look like the US is taking a bigger interest in fracturing Europe than they were before. Based on what Trump has said, I'd say that's because Trump doesn't necessarily care if Europe is united or not and I'm not sure that he spends much time weighing the meaning of union vs individual countries. I’m also under the impression that he believes strong-arming (and blackmail) will get him anywhere anyway. Russia, obviously, has different ambitions but I don’t think it’s a fractured Europe that increases the likelihood of following US lead. I think that depends on the type of government. Meaning, I'm sure that even if the EU fractured, the current French or German governments still wouldn’t look towards the US more than they do now. While right-wing governments are more inclined to appease Russia at the moment, I don’t know what would happen should Ukraine fall and Russia threatened the neighboring countries. Yes, Poland is a NATO member and all that but what I’m getting at is that the threat of Russia is far closer to Western Europe than it is the US, and, as right as the governments might be, I think it’s difficult to predict how they would react if the threat of Russia advances further west. Politics-wise, I wouldn’t consider Italy a much better option than the US at the moment. The government has several things in common with the US government and while some factions in the AfD are a step too far for them, they have AfD sympathizers in their ranks as well. I think both your option and anony.miss’ option would have worked for me. Either would have demonstrated that these are extraordinary circumstances. However, I think what would have complicated your option is the Democrats' ongoing messaging problem. I don't know what it is, why they have such difficulties establishing and fighting/changing narratives. But I think if they had done what you suggested, the story would have been decorum or immaturity or whatever and what should have been the story, the many things that Democrats would have been protesting, would have gotten lost in all the noise - literally and figuratively. I was done with Pelosi back in 2018 when she resisted efforts to start impeachment proceedings and investigate Trump and kept telling everyone that Trump needed to be defeated at the ballot box. I don't know if she didn't want to accept that that wasn't going to be enough or if she didn't see it. But when faced with a leader with authoritarian tendencies, violations of norms and laws need to have consequences or they will just get bolder and bolder. I actually believe that she, and everyone who supported her in how she handled things during Trump's first term, also shares responsibility for where we're at now. I was so impressed with Crockett at the DNC. Alsobrooks as well. And I think there was a third woman but I'm not sure anymore. Generally, I thought that Democrats had some impressive and inspiring politicians at the DNC and it's a pity they're not given more active roles and aren't more visible. I could get on board with that! Germany doesn’t even have term limits for the chancellor. That’s how we end up with chancellors who were in office for 16! years and had Merkel not stepped down, I think another four would have been a real possibility. Given the time that US presidents have to spend campaigning and that they spend much of their last year as a "lame duck", I think 8 years is a little tight to accomplish much. However, I don't think it's the term limits that should change but election campaigns! Germany does have term limits for its equivalent of the Supreme Court, though. They serve for a maximum of 12 years.

I wish it were so but statistics show that it's the younger generations that voted for the AfD. 35-44 year-olds is where they went beyond their national average the most, but they also got more votes than their national average from the generation before and after that. (It's in German but I think you can understand it without knowing German. https://www.tagesschau.de/wahl/archiv/2025-02-23-BT-DE/umfrage-alter.shtml First column is age, second column is the percentage the party got in the election, third column depicts what they lost or gained vs 2021. The white line in the bar is the national average, so that one can see how much more or less votes the party got than their national average in that age group).

My experience has been that it's not the absence of democracy that's responsible but the reunification. Or maybe I should call it the reunification that wasn't? Coincidentally (or not, considering yesterday's election), I was talking to my parents about that yesterday. Former East Germans got so many material privileges and advantages when the wall came down. But to my knowledge, the non-material and mental struggles that came with the sudden change were never addressed. East Germans went from a society where they had little self-determination to one where they had to determine everything themselves. Yes, they weren't free. At the same time, when you don't have to worry about thing like health insurance or childcare for years and all of a sudden, you have to organize things like that yourself, it's going to be a challenge and you likely need help adjusting. Additionally, they were unable to find their cultural identity - just like many other states who belonged to the Soviet Union, they weren't Russians. But they also weren't Germans. From one minute to the next, they had to be, though. How are you supposed to identify with a country you hadn't been a part of for over 30 years? There's also resentment in certain parts of West Germany, especially Berlin, because people from West Berlin were suffering the most financially and to this day, they haven't recovered. It's not just the people, though. The city itself suffered, too. So, that probably doesn't help either. Like my mom said yesterday, it might have been best had East Germany become its own country. At least, it would have given East Germans a chance to figure out who they were culturally. (Not sure how that would have worked for Berlin, though, because I don't think people from West Berlin would have wanted to become East Germany). But to make the AfD result even scarier, the AfD has been declared confirmed right-wing extremist by the Verfassungsschutz (Germany's constitutional protection) in three of the five states that the AfD got the most votes in. One way or another, I think the 20% for the AfD are shameful. I heard part of an interview with someone from the CDU yesterday. What whoever it was said, sounded good. It sounded like they got it: they have to prioritize what the country needs over party differences and make improvements to people's lives. I just hope that they act on it because I'm really afraid of what the election results are going to look like if they don't. I have to object. 🙂 I'm too young to remember the politics of Die Linke (PDS) right after the wall came down. But whatever they were back then, I think it has to be acknowledged that they're not that anymore and haven't been for quite some time. I find that for a while now, they actually seem to be the only party that "gets it" when it comes to interior politics. They are advocating for strengthening the middle class and invest where Germany's been neglecting to invest for far too long, like infrastructure and education and I think if they ever got into government, they'd be great for the ministries of interior and education and possibly environment. I'd say, their interior politics can probably be compared to the Nordic countries; they're social democrats. (Germany's a social market economy, so, while probably slightly to the left of that, Die Linke's policies are in line with Germany's economic system). I don't agree with their policies for foreign politics, though. I agree with their general idea, however, I find it too idealistic for today's world. But I haven't seen anything that would justify considering Die Linke anti-democracy or a threat to Germany's constitution in any shape or form. As far as the BSW is concerned... I don't really know what they are other than far too Putin-friendly. I guess, many people don't either, considering that they don't seem to have made it into parliament. With that said, I think the split was good for Die Linke as Wagenknecht was probably a figure that was too polarizing.

The article I read mentioned that Danny's partner would be from a law enforcement family in Boston. After I read that, I wonder how you create a show that uses key features from another show without making it look like a copy of it. Unless they think that Blue Bloods fans want a copy which, I'm under the impression, isn't the case. I think the family dynamic makes it difficult to "spin-off" Blue Bloods as long as other features aren't changed. The family dynamic was what set it apart from other cop shows and unlike shows like NCIS, CSI and FBI, I don't think you can take the same ingredients and just move the show to a different city. I'm not sure it leaves enough new stories to tell. I think a Blood Bloods spin-off would need a change like make it about a family of prosectors and have one of them be a cop or make it about fire fighters or make it a prequel or sequel. That would preserve what set the show apart while opening up a lot of new avenues. But I'll guess we'll see how they'll do it and what'll come of it. Someone on TV Line commented that it would have made the most sense to center the spin-off around Joe Hill given the circumstances and I agree. However, I can see how Danny might move to Boston if all of the circumstances are right. I imagine that carrying the Reagan name might not be as easy for him as it will be for Jamie once Frank retires considering that Danny had somewhat of a reputation. He got results but he also crossed a line at times. So, if the new show respects that Erin and Jack got remarried and Eddie and Jamie are having a baby and if the relationship with Baez doesn't work out and with his boys out of the house, then I think it can make sense that Danny feels the need to start over in a new city, especially if the job offer is good, too. You know, in a "be away from the memories and the constant reminder of his siblings' happy relationships but close enough to still be able to get together with the family on a regular basis" kind of way. Of course, there's also the possibility that he's moving because of Baez and he's not partnered with her because they're a couple. I'm not sure how likely that is, though.

While I didn't know what "jury nullification" was exactly until after I just googled it (I'm not a native speaker), I thought that a hung jury would kind of have fit the case. I felt there was a lot of ambiguity around it and for the most part, I thought, the episode did a good job of highlighting the issues and conflict and bridging "both sides" with Shaw. However, as mentioned upthread, there was photographic evidence of the glass bottle. I thought it had been introduced, so I went back and checked. A picture showing the victim exiting the club with the champagne bottle in hand was introduced by the defense when the defendant testified. To my knowledge, eye-witnesses are also the most unreliable witnesses there are. While Washburn was a cop and trained to notice things quickly, all the defense needed was reasonable doubt. So, had Washburn told the truth and had the defense argued that the fact that Washburn didn't recall a bottle in the victim's hand didn't automatically mean he didn't have one during cross, I'm sure Washburn would have happily agreed. She's human after all. I don't think there was a need for perjury. But even with the perjury and without bringing up the unrealiability of eye-witnesses, I found it hard to believe that every single juror believed the defendant had commited murder. Jurors weren't privy to what the viewers were privy to. They heard Washburn say that she saw a bottle in the victim's hand and they saw photographic evidence that showed the victim leaving the club with a bottle in his hand. So, what made every single one of the jurors doubt that it was indeed self-defense? Doesn't that mean that every single juror must have believed Washburn was lying? Why? Given the photograph, what reason did they have to believe that other than the prosecution claiming so? The prosecution wants to win the case and the photograph showed the victim with a bottle in his hand. That left me at a loss as to why the entire jury trusted the prosecution's word over a police officer's word that was supported by photographic evidence and not a single one of them believed that it could have been self-defense. (Which, as far as I understand it, is what reasonable doubt is, correct?) So, not only did I think a hung jury would have fit with the theme of the episode, I found it unrealistic that there wasn't. I don't know why TPTB were so keen on getting the DAs office a conviction in this case but it felt like this was their goal and they didn't care how much or little sense it made with regards to the prosecution's case.

I had similar thoughts and felt it was an odd choice on the writers' end. In addition to what you said above, I was surprised that no one in the DAs office thought about the precedent it would set. Wouldn't it give anyone with strong ties to a religious community grounds to argue that they will pay their penance in the church community? What about honor killings? They're permitted in certain cultures/communities, so, how would that differ in Price's mind? How would he justify prosecuting honor killings by someone of Muslim faith but letting the Christian murderer go free even though what he did wasn't all that different from an honor killing. After all, he, too, killed someone because the woman he wanted wasn't doing what he wanted her to do, had chosen someone else and was making her own choices. The difference is, he killed the man but the motive is fairly similar in principle. There's also the fact that Price ruined a young, dedicated cop's career over perjury in that aforementioned episode. And last week, he was so hungry for a conviction that he chose to go after the mother of the victim even though the mother was a victim herself. How was the relationship the parishioners had with their church any different from the abusive relationships the mother had been in all her life? The church prohibited the parents to speak with their son because he left the church and they obeyed. Based on how they communicated that, I don't think they did so because they wanted to. I think they did so because they were afraid of the consequences and I think they'd only be afraid of the consequences if they were in an unhealthy dependency relationship. I'd consider that as a sign that the relationship they have with the church is the equivalent of an abusive relationship. But in this episode, Price wasn't bothered by any of that and when the mother of the victim perjured herself, he didn't even ask to treat the witness as a hostile witness, although, she struck me as the type of person who would have broken had he done so. He just looked on as she gave her speech. I was also surprised that no one argued religion. As far as I understood, the church is Christian, so, what about the ten commandments? No one asked any member about the ones they violated, no one asked if they thought God thought it was cool that they violated the commandments to protect someone who'd done something the church said they didn't do - raise a hand against someone. The community acted like they were saints and yet, I think the teachings of their curch are based in anything but Christian values. While I felt there was great ambiguity in the case about the Black father who killed the man who abused and trafficked his daughter, and I could see both sides in last week's case, I don't think there was any ambiguity here. So yeah, from where I'm sitting, this felt like a very strange case to have Price have doubts about prosecuting and I think they did Price's character a disservice. (I also felt it was kind of frustrating because of all of the above).

I realize I'm late to the party, but I just watched a YouTube video on the history of pecan pie and they had some interesting information that I then googled and thought I'd share 🙂 Apparently, the name "pecan" is Algonquian and pecans originated in central and eastern North America as well as the valleys of Mexico, whatever "originated" means exactly. (As in popularized? Used for food? etc🤷‍♀️) https://www.caneriverpecan.com/pecan-history

That's an interesting point of view and one I never considered. I think that makes a lot of sense, however, I also wonder if that may apply to girls only and not extend into adulthood. From where I'm sitting, I'd say that once a girl becomes a woman, the majority of society still expects her to be "sufficiently feminine" and fill the role reserved for her by social norms. As far as boys are concerned, I'd say it depends on one's environment. My experience has been that it's okay for girls to be tomboyish but there's still prejudice against boys liking things associated with girls. This is an extreme example, but a teacher at the school my mom works at was of the opinion that a child couldn't be transgender because his favorite color was pink. I share that sentiment. The immigration process takes time, money and a certain amount of luck. I've put the details into spoilers for anyone who wants to skip them. 🙂 I was lucky because Obama had made some changes to streamline the process and by the time I went through the process, those changes took effect for my visa category and reduced my wait time to five years. There's also a chance that I benefited from Trump as I heard that a lot of applications had been withdrawn during his tenure but I never bothered to look into it and confirm it. I found the wait time stressful mentally as I felt like I had one foot in and one foot out and wasn't really here nor there. Additionally, Trump was talking about abolishing family reunification visas and I didn't know if that would mean that anyone who was waiting to be able to apply would automatically be denied. Still, I consider myself privileged because I could afford to go through the process. I had the time, I had the money, I had a passport, a visa category I qualified for and I either had all the records I needed or could get them easily. Many of the undocumented immigrants who cross the border at an unauthorized location don't have the luxury. They walk through several countries on foot and/or pay coyotes to smuggle them across the border even though they know the risks involved. I've asked myself many times just how afraid or desperate you must be if you think taking all of those risks is worth it. Overstaying a visa is easy. But once you overstay, you're at constant risk of deportation. I'm sure that it's not something you think about every day and you probably tell yourself that the odds are low and with time, I'm assuming, the fear will drift to the back of your mind. Still, there's that knowledge and there's that risk. For any undocumented immigrants, life is restricted to what the person is comfortable doing and their unlawful status allows them to do. (For example, for those who could afford it, no travel out of the country, limited work options etc). So, as draining as the process was and as expensive as the process was, I wouldn't want to trade places with an undocumented immigrant for the world. Because the fact that I was able to go through the process means I don't have any of the fears, desperation, living conditions, life circumstances and restrictions that they have. And for that, I'm grateful! I'm not sure I agree. It's possible. But Trump has shown a disregard for the Constitution and talked about the things he's doing now long before Musk got involved. I think it's also short-sighted. Currently, children of undocumented immigrants are enrolled in schools. That means, they'll get a proper education that will allow them to get as good a paying job as they can and that means revenue for the government, both state and federal. Children who go to school have friends and do activities with them after school. If they play sports, they need equipment. Parents will accompany those children and possibly buy things like food and drinks. The more children there are in schools, the more teachers are needed. Undocumented immigrants contribute to the economy. If we push them into hiding, they won't do that anymore. Slightly different but related: friends of parents at the school my mom works at were denied entry over the weekend. They're dual citizens, Columbian and Swiss. Their visa is sponsored by the World Bank. But because the visa is in their Columbian passport, CBP denied them entry. The Latino cleaning lady was harrassed by a grandmother, to the point that she was so afraid the next day that she waited for the principal to arrive before she entered the building. She's legal. On a general note, only 52% of the ICE arrests are reportedly so-called "criminal arrests". The rest had either non-violent offenses on their record or their only offense was to be in the country illegally and that's not a crime but a civil violation. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/trump-immigration-raids-citizens-profiling-accusations-native-american-rcna189203 If the end result is that RFK Jr isn't confirmed, I'm good with it. Can a federal agency just ignore federal holidays?

Considering how he's inserting himself into the German election now, I have my doubts. I believe that Musk likes power and part of me also wonders if he might be bored. People with high potential (and I believe Musk's might be very high) need challenges. So, it's possible, he's now looking for the next challenge and that's why he's set his sights on Germany. I think he enjoys the power and the feeling of being able to outsmart everyone. The problem that I see is that it's dangerous to believe you're the smartest person in the room and act like it, too. I hope I don't come across as if I'm schooling because that's not what I want but what makes the US a republic isn't the EC but that they're a representative form of government. In the US, people vote for politicians who are supposed to represent them and their interests. It's the representatives who vote for and make laws and policies. In a democracy, it's the people who do that. In other words, the minority doesn't have any representation in a democracy. In a republic, a head of state can be elected directly or indirectly. (In Austria and France the president is elected directly by the people and much like in the US, the president of France isn't just a figurehead or ceremonial but holds actual power. In Germany, the president is elected by parliament, so indirectly). In German, republic and democracy are defined as "Staatsform" and "Regierungsform" but they're translated as the same word. "Staatsform" means how the government of the country is organized as, so, as a republic. But said republic is governed by the rules of democracy, so according to a majority vote.

Quoting myself because there's one other difference that affects public perception. Article 1 of German Basic Law is "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." The 2nd paragraph reads: "The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world." It is followed by Article 2: "Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law." You find this phrasing throughout, so, we're learning from an early age on that our personal freedom ends when it threatens someone else's/someone else's right to exist. That doesn't mean that everyone agrees and/or complies. But I think the fact that it's the law of the land and there's something that's considered more important than an individual's right of expression changes the dynamic and awareness. Additionally, Germany has an institution that's called "Verfassungsschutz". Translated: protectors of the constitution. They classified the whole AfD as being suspected of being far-right extremists (meaning, their party platform is suspected to be a threat to Germany's constitution) and the Youth AfD (all major parties have youth wings) as well as AfD wings in certain states have been declared as far-right extremist (so, one step above being under suspicion). I think that, too, contributes to a different public awareness because these are things that are reported in the media, so, even if it's not directly about Nazi Germany, there's conversation around the threat to democracy that originates with a political party.

I've meant to add about Musk that I find it appaling that some people in his orbit try to explain it with his autism. I understand if they want to argue that it wasn't a Nazi salute. (Not understand understand it, just that it's their right to do that). I don't know why he would turn around, look at the audience and only then make the exact same gesture again because of what he was saying when he didn't address the people who were behind him at any other point in the speech. But that's a matter of a difference in opinion. Blaming it on a disability, though, is feeding, breeding and encouraging biases as a result and I find it wrong on so many levels. Given that Trump mocked a disabled reporter back in 2015 or 2016 and is said to have mused if the disabled child of a family member may be better off dead, I shouldn't be surprised that people in his orbit would go that far. Still, it's just so unscrupulous and all for their own, personal gain. I have a friend who has Asperger's and I feel like apologizing to her.