Daily review 06/03/2025

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 33 comments
Categories: Daily review

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

33 comments on “Daily review 06/03/2025”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

    1. 1.1

      No, I don’t, because I have not the slightest clue what you’re on about …

      The only comment that was trashed today had been pending in Pre-Mod and never appeared on the site for your eyes to feast on.

        1. 1.1.1.1

          No, that did not clarify it, on the contrary.

          It’s a Post [HT to Alwyn] – a thread is a connected series of (nested) comments & replies.

          I don’t know what the problem is because everything looks fine to me, even when I’m not logged in on another browser.

            1. 1.1.1.1.1.1

              Nope, in WordPress and TS parlance a comment thread and a post are distinctly different things and called as such. This distinction is also in the site’s Policy and About sections. I’d argue that in common English language they’re also different, so I’m puzzled why you want blur the line and confuse matters here!?

                2. 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2

                  Posts are what authors write. Comments get written under posts. Threads are strings of comments on a specific topic.

                  I've seen multiple threads around Helen Clark in the past few days, it was impossible to know which you were talking about. Do you know how to use the search function on TS?

                  1. 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1

                    I thought 'Helen Clark/nuanced' achieved that goal of defining the post'..

                    ..and..posts and threads are by definition different..but they live together.. don't they..?

                    And one begats the other..does it not…?

    1. 2.1

      Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett voted non MAGA, unlike their 4 GOP appointed associates.

      https://bsky.app/profile/liberoreporter.it/post/3ljnfuoeht72n

      Chief Justice Roberts knew that there was a difference between determining POTUS was not accountable for decisions made and allowing executive government to act outside the rule of law. That only one other GOP appointee could appreciate that, is not on her, but the 4 men concerned.

      But note the MAGA misogyny in this response.

      https://www.rawstory.com/amy-coney-barrett-2671273636/

      1. 2.1.1

        Senator on the Justice Committee called it a basic contract law case, and notes organisational capture – he says 4 GOP appointees work for Leonard Leo's Project 2025 (president of the Federalist Society partner of Heritage Foundation and Elon Musk in running the 47th presidency).

    1. 3.1

      The Beehive Civilian can report that an email to Goff from MFAT apologised to him for not making him aware of policy for Ambassadors not to speak truth in public. A policy that had extended by the current government from domestic politics to foreign policy since Trump became POTUS.*

      Making the domestic policy a new world order*.

          1. 3.1.1.1.1

            Nah, not enough berths for those billionaires. It would require huge investment into new infrastructure like for large ferries and both Willis and Peters defied Luxon and said No to that.

      2. 3.1.2

        The Europeans have heard reports of the speech in Chatham House and have mobolised their defence against Russian and American perfidy.

        The time for French diplomatique leadership has come. The march on Orleans Kiev begins

        President Emmanuel Macron warned that the continent was at a turning point of history

        The term turning point is a French secular republic insult to the husband of Candace Owens (who ran Turning Point UK related to Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA (Christian dominionism version of fascism).

        https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3w14gw3wwlo

        1. 3.1.3.1

          Sources are protected (no it was not Jason Ede).

          PS

          According to another source, Musk has been assigned the email address erm71@who.eop.gov.

          The email address reflects his attachment to the White House Office, the Executive Office of the President, and, apparently, Musk’s full initials plus his birth year, 1971.

          This differs from the standard format for EOP emails, which typically include the staffer’s full first and last name.

          As this source has revealed themselves, here is the link.

          https://theintercept.com/2025/03/06/elon-musk-doge-email-address-foia/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter

          1. 3.1.3.1.1

            I really cannot see what the format of Musk's e-mail address has to do with a supposed e-mail from MFAT to Goff.

            I take it that you haven't seen the e-mail? Has anyone else?

      1. 3.2.1

        He’s always had a tendency for theatre and rhetoric over substance. Ironically, that makes him a good Foreign Minister.

Comments are closed.