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
Trump seems to have Biden Derangement Syndrome. He can't seem to shut up about the guy.
His terrible usage of capitalisation at the start of random words alone is a crime against humanity.
Also the use of the redundant words (eg 'mentally insane'.... as opposed to 'physically insane'?) is unspeakable.
Capitalism certainly isn't perfect. It's just better than any other system which has ever been tried on a national scale.
I mean isn't that shall imperative? that's the same verbal form of the 10 commandments isn't it? Anyway there is the "take care" clause of the constitution as well for the president, he has to execute the laws, he doesn't have a power to fully disregard them.Keep in mind we are talking aliens in gvmnt custody, not a mandate to do anything he can to capture all illegals already
The "upon order of" clause doesn't appear in the commandments. If it weren't here, I would agree with you.
If the AG weren't meant to be making the decision, there would be no reason for that clause to be here.
nope I am saying what the consequences of the absurd claim that the government doesn't have a mandate to deport llegals in custody would be.it would mean no mandate to uphold any federal law at all. the open season would be a legal option if your friends there are right and disregarding the law in full is legal for the president.I am glad you realize the corollary of your frien
Correct, AFAIK there is no mandate for the federal government to prosecute any crimes.
And of course disregarding the law is legal for the president to do, the Supreme Court said so just last year.
Maybe Rococo could chime in about some of these things though.
It's a very weak message. But, to me, as a Leftist (not Democrat), it does serve to make me angry at the Democrats because it reminds me of what level of incompetence they acted like they couldn't defeat. They've gone from acting like their agenda was under the total control of some obscure figure called the Parliamentarian to acting like they can't beat this guy?
I'm sorry I don't buy it. Israel wanted this for us and that is why Trump is in power. They ****ing sabotaged that ****ing Harris campaign because they own the Repubs under a tighter contract than they own the Dems.
The more you make fun of Trump and expose him the more you have to reflect on how the hell he won. I hate to take on what is usually a fascist tactic and blame an exogenous force but until someone can explain to me why the Harris campaign ran away from gains constantly I have to think it was thrown. And if it was thrown who coached it and why?
Dude has gotta go........
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared detailed information about forthcoming strikes in Yemen on March 15 in a private Signal group chat that included his wife, brother and personal lawyer, according to four people with knowledge of the chat.
Some of those people said that the information Mr. Hegseth shared on the Signal chat included the flight schedules for the F/A-18 Hornets targeting the Houthis in Yemen — essentially the same attack plans that he shared on a separate Signal chat the same day that mistakenly included the editor of The Atlantic.
Trump seems to have Biden Derangement Syndrome. He can't seem to shut up about the guy.
When he started with Rosie O'Donnell Syndrome years ago, I had no idea we would end up here.
If we equivocate on what it means to be exploited to mean you don’t get to keep 100% of the profits from a commodity you produce then yes, capitalism requires exploitation.
I don’t see why we would want to define exploitation that way though. Under that definition if I keep 99% of the profit as a laborer but 1% goes to the person that owns the capital, I am being exploited. Seems pretty dumb
I guess the problem is more how the end reward (through bad political choices ) is distributed instead of what capitalism is , confusing people like jalfrezi about capitalism being an exploitable scheme .
Comparing competition with exploitation doesn’t make sense to me .
Lol Hegseth. Getting so uppity about the first leaked chat when he knew he was also sharing info with other people outside the government in another thread on the same app. Dude is living purely off the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Pussy NYT calling em “attack plans” now that the bankrupt Atlantic was exposed for being idiots and not knowing what a “war plan” was.
Big win for Hegseth. When you confirm a guy, you get his entire family and inner circle too, everyone knows that.
I don't get the argument at all that somebody is a leftist or a progressive but not a Democrat. That is just a wing of the Democratic party. The power in the Democratic party knows the leftist wing can be squashed down because they have nowhere else to go. The leftist wing either accepts whatever moderate the party gives them and likes it or sits out the election and helps elect Republicans.
I don't get the argument at all that somebody is a leftist or a progressive but not a Democrat. That is just a wing of the Democratic party. The power in the Democratic party knows the leftist wing can be squashed down because they have nowhere else to go. The leftist wing either accepts whatever moderate the party gives them and likes it or sits out the election and helps ele
As a leftist that is not a Democrat, we vote (or should vote) for democrats because we don't currently have a choice, but we would like to continue moving to the left of democrats over time.
I find the democratic party to be pretty subpar, but vastly preferable to the conservative party which must be avoided at all costs because...(gestures around).
As a leftist that is not a Democrat, we vote (or should vote) for democrats because we don't currently have a choice, but we would like to continue moving to the left of democrats over time.
I find the democratic party to be pretty subpar, but vastly preferable to the conservative party which must be avoided at all costs because...(gestures around).
That is exactly the point I was making. A leftist is still is Democrat because there is no other place to go. The power of the party knows that, and it is why whoever wins the nomination in 2028 will again be some centrist.
similar to squares and rhombi (rhombuseses), so too are democrat and leftist.
perhaps we can find some nit picky "but relative to this even MORE extreme scenario" that could necessitate a little more robust reply than the above.
However, if you are approaching this from angle of "leftist ='s democrat unequivocally always", then the above is absolutely 100% sufficient.
No, it isn't, as I will now explain.
Yes, there is. There is a whole universe to the left of the democratic party. I am not a member of the democratic party, nor do I believe in a large portion of the democratic party platform. I am NOT a democrat just because I usually vote for them.
The power of the party knows that, and it is why whoever wins the nomination in 2028 will again be some centrist.
This is irrelevant to whether or not I am a democrat.
That is exactly the point I was making. A leftist is still is Democrat because there is no other place to go. The power of the party knows that, and it is why whoever wins the nomination in 2028 will again be some centrist.
ok even in the ultra limited american sphere of 2 parties, this is far from realistic.
While i would chidingly call a self proclaimed libertarian simply someone who fears negative social response to the reality of being simply a republican, perhaps there is commonality for for progressive left though i'd argue in an absolutely DIFFERENT way. As you move further left, i'd say moral ethical stances that are defensible and substantive shift such that "democrat" no longer begins to be an applicable term.
the spectrum is not zero sum in other words. as you travel further left along political ideology you absolutely put distance between yourself and the identification with the party nearest you on spectrum.
So in a way, there is a unidirectional shedding of identification with american binary political hegemony.
perhaps it exists on extreme right?
Correct, AFAIK there is no mandate for the federal government to prosecute any crimes.
And of course disregarding the law is legal for the president to do, the Supreme Court said so just last year.
Maybe Rococo could chime in about some of these things though.
I good general rule of thumb regarding legislation from the most powerful (in our case the federal house and senate) is that they rarely obligate themselves to do anything, certainly not on an absolute basis. However, they commonly impose such obligations on the state governments and the citizens.
I good general rule of thumb regarding legislation from the most powerful (in our case the federal house and senate) is that they rarely obligate themselves to do anything, certainly not on an absolute basis. However, they commonly impose such obligations on the state governments and the citizens.
Another good rule of thumb is if that it’s so crazy that not even Stephen ****ing Miller is making that argument it is obviously bullshit. For example - not even that bald freak has gone on TV and said “we’ll actually that prison is SAFER than the country in general so it’s fine to send someone there even if they have an order barring it”.
Here’s what that statute says:
“ Any alien (including an alien crewman) in and admitted to the United States shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be removed if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens:”
If I had to guess, I’d say Luciom thinks “shall” means the government HAS to deport people in the categories.
Except it says “Upon order of the AG”, which means AG gets to decide. That makes logical sense since immigration court is run through DOJ - all immigration judges are DOJ employees.
I expect that if you look into this, there will be multiple statutes delegating the authority to issue an order to remove to the immigration courts. And so what really happens is that there is a hearing where these IJs decide whether someone is deportable and make a ruling. That’s where the “shall” kicks in - if the judge says you’re out then you’re out.
It obviously doesn’t mean there is an affirmative obligation to deport every single person. Just stop and think for a second how that would even work.
Another good rule of thumb is if that it’s so crazy that not even Stephen ****ing Miller is making that argument it is obviously bullshit. For example - not even that bald freak has gone on TV and said “we’ll actually that prison is SAFER than the country in general so it’s fine to send someone there even if they have an order barring it”. Here
There is no way to read this statute to conclude that “alien shall be removed” would be construed as the “AG shall deport” except by a loon who can’t let go of a theory once his lies are exposed and he is proven wrong.
