President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
WSJ Exclusive: U.S. Plans to Use Tariff Negotiations to Isolate China
The Trump administration plans to use ongoing tariff negotiations to pressure U.S. trading partners to limit their dealings with China, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.
The idea is to extract commitments from U.S. trading partners to isolate China’s economy in exchange for reductions in trade and tariff barriers imposed by the White House. U.S. officials plan to use negotiations with more than 70 nations to ask them to disallow China to ship goods through their countries, prevent Chinese firms from locating in their territories to avoid U.S. tariffs, and not absorb China’s cheap industrial goods into their economies.
For the purpose of the narrative, in the context of a deportation proceeding that allows the gvmnt do kick anyone they want outside of the country, i think the *only thing that matters is if the AEA can be used through the provision of "invasion" being ongoing or not".If it can , Trump can send away to El Salvador or anywhere else as many non citizens as he wants including thos
Originalism? Wasn't all immigration to the US legal when the constitution was ratified? I do not think the founding fathers believed that immigration of less than 1% of the population would constitute an invasion.
Bukele was interviewed claiming that he has no intention to "smuggle back" a M13 gang member (which is how he considers the guy).Do you really think that they can't just fake the theater of "official request" and "official denial" if that is enough to put the matter to rest? if that happens, has Trump satisfied the conditions of the order yes/no?"judge we are sorry to inform yo
Because it obviously wouldn't be "smuggling".
Maybe people in the USA won't tolerate the gestapo running around rounding people up.
Maybe people in the USA won't tolerate the gestapo running around rounding people up.
Oh please! They aren't just "running around rounding up people". They aren't the "gestapo". They are simply getting the illegals out of this country. Shame on those trying to stop ice from doing their job.
I know there have been a lot of recent downward predictions for the S&P 500, but I am still surprised how bullish predictions remain when mild recession seems to be just about the best scenario being forecasted.
think of all the little puppies and kittens ice has saved so far this year you commie bastard libtards!!!!!1
While definition of "being at war" is an official one and requires official steps to have happened, which they didn't, point me to where it is written exactly what constitutes an invasion and who decides if one is happening to allow the AEA to be triggered.
It isn't a matter of opinion, rather a legal one: who gets the last call to determine if an invasion is indeed happening or not? the executive or courts? can we admit this is all congress fault and no law should ever be so ambiguous, especially if it's about the suspension of crucial rights?
Originalism? Wasn't all immigration to the US legal when the constitution was ratified? I do not think the founding fathers believed that immigration of less than 1% of the population would constitute an invasion.
Originalism for the definition of invasion, and what constitutes it, in order to decide what can trigger the AEA.
In late 18th century the term invasion was trying to cover for a country sending a lot of armed people into the USA without a war having been officially declared.
Oh please! They aren't just "running around rounding up people". They aren't the "gestapo". They are simply getting the illegals out of this country. Shame on those trying to stop ice from doing their job.
That's exactly what the gestapo said they were doing as well. Some people believed they were telling the truth and some didn't, just like now with Trump. Later the world discovered for certain what had happened, although even now some crazy people don't believe the truth on the matter.
While definition of "being at war" is an official one and requires official steps to have happened, which they didn't, point me to where it is written exactly what constitutes an invasion and who decides if one is happening to allow the AEA to be triggered.It isn't a matter of opinion, rather a legal one: who gets the last call to determine if an invasion is indeed happening or
Sure, it would be great to have a better definition, but I don't think that makes it correct to sentence possibly innocent people to death just because a law was vague in some way.
Unfortunately, the founding fathers, along with every president through 2016, and nearly every American, figured that someone as dishonest, incompetent, avaricious, and unscrupulous as Donald Trump could never be elected president.
I'm more pessimistic and cynical person than anyone I have ever met, and even I never thought such a terrible thing would come to pass.
Originalism for the definition of invasion, and what constitutes it, in order to decide what can trigger the AEA.
In late 18th century the term invasion was trying to cover for a country sending a lot of armed people into the USA without a war having been officially declared.
Well I'm confused, because now it seems like you're agreeing with me. You seemed to be saying that the current situation could reasonably be considered an invasion per the understanding of the founders of the country.
Well I'm confused, because now it seems like you're agreeing with me. You seemed to be saying that the current situation could reasonably be considered an invasion per the understanding of the founders of the country.
No i say it can be considered an invasion according to today semantics , while it probably can't under an originalist reading.
Anyway the problem remains no matter what WE think invasion meant for the purpose of that law, about who decides what it means, and who is the final arbiter of if an invasion is occurring or not.
That's not very different from the exclusionary clause for electability of "insurrection" in a person past, and for that question, SCOTUS said congress has the last say iirc.
Sure, it would be great to have a better definition, but I don't think that makes it correct to sentence possibly innocent people to death just because a law was vague in some way.Unfortunately, the founding fathers, along with every president through 2016, and nearly every American,
I don't think that's true. They even considered the possibility that a foreigner could become president and make the USA part of a kingdom again (which is why they specifically excluded foreign born people from being president).
And in general fed. paper # 51 is all about how the system has to be built to avoid the otherwise inevitable oppression of the people by the rulers, because "men aren't angels" both when they need to be governed and when in government.
They knew very well that politics attract the sociopaths primarily even if they wrote it with a very different language
I don't see how the US has any leverage here. We already saw them walk back on the tariffs in general, electronics in particular, and Trump is talking about "doing something" for automakers. It's a clown show.
I don't think that's true. They even considered the possibility that a foreigner could become president and make the USA part of a kingdom again (which is why they specifically excluded foreign born people from being president).And in general fed. paper # 51 is all about how the system has to be built to avoid the otherwise inevitable oppression of the people by the rulers, bec
Sure, but I mean they thought that after they put all those rules in place, a Trump figure could never be elected.
However, I just remembered that they didn't even plan for the popular vote to elect the president (or even senators). It was supposed to be done by electors who were chosen by the state legislatures. He probably could never have been elected under that system, with a significant extra filter.
When I originally learned in school that was the way things used to be, I always thought it was bizarre. Now I'm inclined to think that it should have stayed that way.
I don't see how the US has any leverage here. We already saw them walk back on the tariffs in general, electronics in particular, and Trump is talking about "doing something" for automakers. It's a clown show.
I never would have expected that I would want China to win any kind of contest with the US, for the good of the US. It's sad that our leadership is now even worse than theirs.
I never would have expected that I would want China to win any kind of contest with the US, for the good of the US. It's sad that our leadership is now even worse than theirs.
Yeah, this.
Insofar as you can say this without fear of being jailed, I'd say there is still a way to go before this is reality.
However, Trump's administration certainly seems hellbent on closing that gap.
Insofar as you can say this without fear of being jailed, I'd say there is still a way to go before this is reality.
However, Trump's administration certainly seems hellbent on closing that gap.
Which constitutional rights of american citizens has the Trump administration infringed, or attempted to infringe?
Which constitutional rights of american citizens has the Trump administration infringed, or attempted to infringe?
Good thing the constitution covers non-citizens in most aspects that aren't specifically defined for citizens
But, trans people. Hes specifically attacked trans citizen rights
George and Kellyanne didn't get divorced until 2023! Some 7 years after she accepted a prominent role in the Trump Administration and some 3 years after it ended! So, no, that's clearly NOT why they divorced. I suspect they divorced sometime shortly after the crazy beef between Kellyanne and their daughter Claudia became public.
Many of these Republican-adjacent, anti-Trump people you like in the political arena are comparably as rotten as Trump himself. I can't remember if Conway in particular was a big Iraq War booster, but multiple of the Lincoln Project creeps were for sure.
Which constitutional rights of american citizens has the Trump administration infringed, or attempted to infringe?
You always make this point as if it is a gotcha. It isn't.
Most of us reject the assumption implicit in your argument--namely, that there should be no guardrails on how a government treats residents who are not citizens.
I don't agree that Trump has avoided actually infringing on the rights of citizens, but let's put that to the side for the moment. He indisputably has attempted to do so, and he indisputably has expressed a desire to do so. His efforts to remain in office by promoting baseless allegations of election fraud are the most obvious example of an attempt to infringe on the rights of citizens. Few rights in a democracy are more fundamental than the right of citizens to elect their leadership.
His expressions of support for infringing on rights are numerous and varied. To satisfy yourself on this point, just review his public statements on birthright citizenship, libel law, press restrictions, etc.
I know what you are going to say. You are going to say that failed efforts to infringe on rights and expressions of support for doing so are essentially harmless because we have courts. I vehemently disagree. The judicial branch should not be put in the position of acting as endless bulwark against an executive branch that doesn't care about legality.
What happens in that scenario is that the executive branch eventually begins to disregard the rule of law, which undermines the authority of the judiciary as the arbiter of the law and eventually corrupts the judiciary.
This is what creeping authoritarianism looks and it is happening as we speak.
