South Korea's President says US investment demands would spark financial crisis

The things Trump does *also* make sense if you assume he's not a Russian puppet. He also wants to divide Europe against itself, keep the world hooked on (US) fossil fuels and to undermine threats to his rule. He doesn't need Russia for that, but their interests do sometimes align and it would be stupid not to take advantage of it.

Russia has puppet states and is actively working on building them. Russia is actively trying to influence elections in foreign countries too. Trump being suspect Russian puppet is not xenofobia, it is completely consistent with what Russia is and who Trump is.

If the US gets invested with such "virtual" ("out-of-thin-air", newly issued, etc.) dollars i guess it would be even worse as it would only inflate prices in US while not doing anything else.

A war would be legal when the _casus belli_ leading up to it would be a non-military action.

For example, Egypt might have casus belli if Sudan stopped the Nile's flow, a non military action with significant impact.

War is illegal under the international law for all UN member states. The main exceptions are self defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council.

Of course, nobody really cares about that.

Subs are definitely australia's best choice here. Subs are king of the ocean and are by far the best tool for enforcing territorial claims and warding off harassment of domestic vessels or harassment along international trading lanes at sea.

Hope you speak Korean! Straight from the horse's mouth. [0] The companies themselves were well aware they were working illegally. People were even doing visa runs to chain them, it doesn't get much more blatant then that.

It's pretty obvious and not a real point of contention. Being honest about this does not support the raid, and acting as if it does helps nobody and only hurts.

[0] https://www.teamblind.com/kr/post/%ED%98%84%EC%B0%A8-%EC%97%...

You have posed a reasonable question with good intentions. A simple Google search reveals:

>U.S. authorities said some of the detained Korean workers had illegally crossed the U.S. border, while others entered legally but had expired visas or entered on visa waivers that prohibited them from working.

From PBS, a source with a well known editorial stance against the current administration.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/south-korean-workers-retu...

>Like many of the Koreans who were working there, advocates and lawyers representing the non-Korean workers caught up in the raid say that some who were detained had legal authorization to work in the United States.

LA Times, similar

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-09-14/famili...

With any of these contentious partisan issues it is important to be wary of cherry picking. Typically events are selectively reported to fit a given partisan agenda.

It would be extreme to believe that entire groups are being arbitrarily detained and deported. Similarly, it isn't unreasonable to expect mistakes to be made. The reasonable thing to do with extreme claims such as the ones made in this thread is to do a simple Google search before engaging in partisan flames. It has become almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion here on any topic which may tangentially involve Trump.

Visas are granted to individuals not companies. Working outside your visa status is illegal in most developed countries.

What specific illegal activity was happening? Honest question, I’ve not seen any reference to such a thing before your and the other guy’s comment.

One can argue that, if one doesn't look too closely how that "limiting of each other" tends to work in practice, and how it tends to work out in the end.

We have many, many examples of presidential republics, where both a president and a parliament have equal constitutional claim to represent the will of the people.

We see them reel from one constitutional crisis to another like a drunken sailor.

The US has fared comparatively well, as presidential republics go - so far. I don't know why, maybe because some groups have been more willing to yield to preserve the prestige of the institution as a whole. Given that it's the most prestigious presidential republic by a mile, that wouldn't be so surprising.

But it makes sense then, that this subservience will eventually get pushed further and further, until everything breaks.

The problem is how difficult it is to remove someone once they are in power. In parliamentary democracies, it's simply loss of majority.

> I guess the president is democratically elected too.

That's a bug, not a feature though.

What happens in practice is that you get president and government from different parties and they carry their political fights on instead of governing. The president vetoes the government just for the sake of sabotaging it for his parties political gains. We've had already multiple instances of president and government having almost independent foreign policies, crazy. Trump, e.g., has de facto been ignoring our prime minister Tusk (which by constitution should decide our foreign policy) and has been talking only with our president. And that's not on Trump, but our crappy Polish constitution for allowing this mess.

On top of that, governments are based on holding a majority votes, presidents just stay there whatever happens and whatever chaos they create.

I think that there should be a politically, democratically elected government whose job is to make laws, and the rest of institutions should be as bureaucratic and boring as possible, with as little political involvement as possible.

Again, I really like how in Italy or Germany the president is not involved into law and policy making. Ever noticed how all the countries that deviate towards autocracy...are all presidential based?