No. As a head of state, he has diplomatic immunity when he travels to a foreign country. If he were arrested, it would violate customary international law, and perhaps also treaties. The immunity is not absolute, but damn near.

I suppose a foreign country could try to do it, but without just cause (e.g., for grave international crimes) the consequences could be significant. They could include at least commensurate retaliatory action (expelling diplomats, etc.)

This principle applies, for example, when foreign diplomats come to the USA to address the UN, even from countries the USA is not all that fond of.

But once he's out of office, he no longer has immunity.

In a democracy, we all agree to accept the outcome whether we vote or we don't, and no matter who we voted for if we did.

Look, I get that people don't vote for many reasons:

- didn't have time;
- couldn't get babysitters;
- unable to reach the polls before closing after waiting in a long line;
- wrongly removed from the list of registered voters;
- wanting to make a statement by not voting;
- and so on.

But it still comes down to this: not voting is not voting. It is not some different kind of vote. I think we agree on that.

The only case I can think of where voting and not voting might be blurred is when someone spoils their ballot. If it's intentional, then it's the same as not voting, but with the added statement of counting among the spoiled ballots -- kind of a "none of the above" vote, but not really. And if it's unintentional, then it's a vote, but cast carelessly and not counted.

Well ... you can't. You simply assert what you know to be the truth, and if USCIS believes you, then you're fine. Presumably they'd check to see whether anyone with your name has an Instagram account, and if they find a match, question you about it.

If they don't believe you, then they may refuse you entry. They can do that. They can refuse you entry for pretty much any tenable reason, if you don't have status.

On the other hand, if you lie, and USCIS finds out, then you can be banned entry to the USA for up to 5 years.

There is such a thing as voting.
There is such a thing as not voting.
The two are not the same.

Equating opposites is lethal to epistemology.

Thanks for the improvement.

President Donald Trump has immunity from that kind of inspection.

While he's in office.

If you get diverted to secondary inspection at a US border crossing, USCIS can, and just might, scan your electronic devices. They may demand to know your passwords -- to your devices and your online accounts. If you refuse to give them, then they may refuse you entry, or confiscate the device for more detailed inspection, and (eventually) return it to you.

This can even happen to citizens, except that they cannot be denied entry. Green-card holders cannot be denied entry either, unless they have committed a crime or have overstayed outside the USA before returning.

Wrong. Trump/Vance obtained a plurality of the popular vote, but not over 50% of it.

It follows therefore that they did not get 50% of the voting public either. The voting public being the citizenry who are eligible to vote, but may or may not have done so.

This. Trump has his head up his ass regarding many things, but regarding this statement about tourism in particular.

Tourism has in fact dropped off significantly from the rest of the world since he took office, especially from Canada. And it's not the tariffs or the currency exchange-rate, or even the unwelcome (and unwelcoming) fees and secondary-inspections at the border for some visitors. It's the "51st-state" rhetoric and the disrespect for Canada's sovereignty.

And it's not just tourism. There are widespread boycotts in Canada against goods made in the USA. Some clever US companies have, with limited success, engaged in "maple-washing" -- labeling their products to make them appear to be sourced in Canada. US liquor is absent form stores in many provinces, and sells poorly where it is available.

Trump is reaping what he has sown, but as usual, he's engaging in denial.

You said that twice. It would help us if you could explain what you think it means, and how it differs from what you perceive as MachineShedFred's understanding.

Are you saying the Feds can break the law, and get away with it because of supremacy and qualified immunity?

Congress and courts have un-merged companies in the past. It could happen again.

Wow, stop clutching your pearls. No matter who you support on this issue, their actions don't come anywhere near terrorism, economic or otherwise.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Yeah, they have done that before. And the recipients of the censure treated it as a badge of honor.

Trump wants Netflix out of the picture so that his friends at Paramount can buy not just Warner Bros Discovery, but all of Warner, including CNN.

So, I don't think he wants this tied up in court until he leaves office. He wants Netflix to lose quickly.

Given this, I'm torn about whether to support Netflix here.

Look, all of you in this thread should read TFS. The person who filed the suit is a subscriber to HBO Max -- not Netflix. It wouldn't make much sense for the subscriber to cancel their subscription to protest something another provider is doing.

The Linux Foundation has many large corporate members, including ones you wouldn't consider to be very open-sourcey.

https://www.linuxfoundation.or...