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
Tariffs can be a tool used to protect your own industry. You deny your citizen's access to cheaper and / or better foreign goods, as to protect your own industry of the same type or to spur local investment.Of course, this hinges on a) Actually having said industry b) Doing it in a reliable long-term manner that actually enables investing in the education, infrastructure and pr
Yeah, this is a good explanation of why broad tariffs for the US are so dumb. They aren't even trying to nurture US industries to replace imports because subsidizing low end manufacturing of clothes, toys would just be dumb.
As usual you've misunderstood. One of those two senile old fcers is President.
I personally don't care about this. Yes, Trump is too old to be president, but it's entirely possible that this isn't age related.
The more fundamental issue is that age isn't Trump's main flaw as a president. Trump has been profoundly unfit to be president for the last five decades. If he had been elected in 1992, he would would have been almost as terrible as he is now.
There's actually a possibility that the more senile he gets, the better he becomes as president. I mean, he's pretty much the nut low right now so you can only go up from there, right?
I'm curious whether people think Kristi Noem's testimony on the hill yesterday about habeas corpus was more a product of deliberate dishonesty or ignorance. (I'm sure there was at least some of both.)
Noem was on Capitol Hill to testify before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on the Department of Homeland Security's budget for fiscal year 2026. She was asked by Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., to define "habeas corpus."
The secretary responded: "Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country."
In reality, habeas corpus is a bedrock constitutional legal principle that safeguards individuals from unlawful imprisonment by enabling them to petition the court to review the legality of their detention.
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/20/nx-s1-540...
Recasting constitutional protections, i.e., shields, as affirmative powers granted to the executive branch, i.e., swords, is very much a theme with Trump's lawyers, and that is deliberate bullshit by Trump's attorneys 100% of the time. But maybe Noem is just an idiot.
It was about obstinate defiance. She doesn't care what it means, only that she gets to assert that the president has the power to do what he wants so the trump zombies can all pump their fist and think that that settles it.
It was about obstinate defiance. She doesn't care what it means, only that she gets to assert that the president has the power to do what he wants so the trump zombies can all pump their fist and think that that settles it.
I certainly agree that she doesn't care what it means. Do you think that she walked into that hearing yesterday knowing what it meant?
I certainly agree that she doesn't care what it means. Do you think that she walked into that hearing yesterday knowing what it meant?
Probably not. Conservatives are wildly ignorant as a rule, so I'm basing my guess purely on that.
I personally don't care about this. Yes, Trump is too old to be president, but it's entirely possible that this isn't age related.
The more fundamental issue is that age isn't Trump's main flaw as a president. Trump has been profoundly unfit to be president for the last five decades. If he had been elected in 1992, he would would have been almost as terrible as he is now.
It doesn't help that the walking into a wall thing is extremely dubious to put it mildly.
Not sure he wouldn't have been worse when younger. I'm sure he naps more now and at least he can't go on for another 30 years.
I personally don't care about this. Yes, Trump is too old to be president, but it's entirely possible that this isn't age related.
The more fundamental issue is that age isn't Trump's main flaw as a president. Trump has been profoundly unfit to be president for the last five decades. If he had been elected in 1992, he would would have been almost as terrible as he is now.
Imagine him handling 9/11. He probably would have nuked a random country he thought was Afghanistan..
Imagine him handling 9/11. He probably would have nuked a random country he thought was Afghanistan..
Reminds me of this Colbert skit.
I'm curious whether people think Kristi Noem's testimony on the hill yesterday about habeas corpus was more a product of deliberate dishonesty or ignorance. (I'm sure there was at least some of both.)https://www.npr.org/2025/05/20/nx-s1-540...Recasting constitutional protections, i.e., shields, as affirmative powers granted to the executive branc
she just messed up in the first answer, like she didn't understand the question or thought it was about the suspension of it.
That was clear when she later just said that the president has a right to suspend it.
Now the whole question lingers on the invasion thing (and a potential citizen/non citizen divide on top of that). Habeas corpus is a fundamental right (in the shield sense, in the negative right sense, in the "the gvmnt cannot do X to you " sense), and it's a shield even for republicans, and they aren't claiming otherwise usually.
Question is can the illegal presence of millions of people in the country, caused by a complete dereliction of duty in the decades of previous office holders (including the first trump admin), be that kind of exceptional case when you need to suspend that, in order to restore a legality that has been bended beyond recognition for decades (allowing people to stay when the law explicitly doesn't)?
That's btw why with an invasion it can be suspended. Because it makes no sense to stop the gvmnt from imprisoning large amount of people and kick them away , when they shouldn't be there to begin with.
Now for a growing number of republicans, it's morally atrocious to give any rights to non-law-abiding non-citizens to begin with. It might be what the constitution calls for, but they deeply hate the idea and try to stretch constitutional interpretations to diminish/remove rights of non-citizens because of that.
That is a ethos that goes back 2k+ years , to the "civis romanus sum". Citizens are superior human beings under that ethos, granted superior rights, deserving of respect and so on much more than all other human beings.
One can agree or disagree but that's the idea underpinning this admin action in many cases.
The "invasion" thing is in the constitution (and it clearly is something else than a war, otherwise it wouldn't be separated by it in the constitution itself), isn't clearly defined, and so it's a window to attempt the interpretational stretch as per above.
But i have a question here because i don't understand an element of the whole discussion tbh: why do you need to suspend habeas corpus if all you need to do to comply with it is saying you are detaining those people because they are illegal aliens?
If an illegal detained because he is an illegal petitions for habeas corpus, do courts have to waste time even if he doesn't present any element to prove is isn't an illegal?
she just messed up in the first answer, like she didn't understand the question or thought it was about the suspension of it.
That was clear when she later just said that the president has a right to suspend it.
She may or may not have known what it meant, but the bolded doesn't prove the point. She gave that answer after the questioner defined habeas corpus for her.
Question is can the illegal presence of millions of people in the country, caused by a complete dereliction of duty in the decades of previous office holders (including the first trump admin), be that kind of exceptional case when you need to suspend that, in order to restore a legality that has been bended beyond recognition for decades (allowing people to stay when the law explicitly doesn't)?
That's btw why with an invasion it can be suspended. Because it makes no sense to stop the gvmnt from imprisoning large amount of people and kick them away , when they shouldn't be there to begin with.
The Constitution doesn't say that habeas corpus can be suspended in "exceptional cases." It says that it can be suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion. The administration's dubious attempts to characterize the current situation as an "invasion" have not been successful in the courts.
Now for a growing number of republicans, it's morally atrocious to give any rights to non-law-abiding non-citizens to begin with. It might be what the constitution calls for, but they deeply hate the idea and try to stretch constitutional interpretations to diminish/remove rights of non-citizens because of that.
That is a ethos that goes back 2k+ years , to the "civis romanus sum". Citizens are superior human beings under that ethos, granted superior rights, deserving of respect and so on much more than all other human beings.
One can agree or disagree but that's the idea underpinning this admin action in many cases.
These are not legal arguments.
The "invasion" thing is in the constitution (and it clearly is something else than a war, otherwise it wouldn't be separated by it in the constitution itself), isn't clearly defined, and so it's a window to attempt the interpretational stretch as per above.
See above. It's an "intepretational stretch" that has been rejected.
But i have a question here because i don't understand an element of the whole discussion tbh: why do you need to suspend habeas corpus if all you need to do to comply with it is saying you are detaining those people because they are illegal aliens?
If an illegal detained because he is an illegal petitions for habeas corpus, do courts have to waste time even if he doesn't present any element to prove is isn't an illegal?
First, very few people who are in the country illegally and are facing deportation file habeas petitions. Most simply get deported.
Second, habeas petitions are rarely granted and the procedural requirements are significant.
Third, the government can't defeat a habeas petition simply by stating that a person was in the country illegally. If I was being detained in advance of deportation, and I filed a compelling habeas petition, the government couldn't prevail simply by stating that I was in the country illegally.
Fourth, the entire point of suspending habeas corpus is to prevent the government from being subject to compelling habeas petitions. The Trump administration wants the ability to detain and deport people without having to worry about whether its actions are lawful. That's the goal.
Even trump…
It doesn’t prevent u to like him and vote for him .
I'm curious whether people think Kristi Noem's testimony on the hill yesterday about habeas corpus was more a product of deliberate dishonesty or ignorance. (I'm sure there was at least some of both.)https://www.npr.org/2025/05/20/nx-s1-540...Recasting constitutional protections, i.e., shields, as affirmative powers granted to the executive branc
I saw some of it yesterday .
I was wondering if it was AI parody .
Scary times being in the US.
Man I love being Canadian !
I saw some of it yesterday .
I was wondering if it was AI parody .
Scary times being in the US.
Man I love being Canadian !
Yeah its not like your government declared an Emergencies act over some truckers and seized the bank accounts of anyone that even donated to that protest .
Im curious all those migrants Obama deported did they get due process?
Anyone else find it embarrassing that world leaders are being ambushed on visits to the WH, and having to respond to easily debunked conspiracy theories? All so they can continue to push their crazy talking points to their base?
what I find most embarrassing tbh is BTC reaching briefly all time highs today.
I truly don't understand why people are so bullish on so many asset classes in the current environment (bonds being the glaring exception globally)
Anyone else find it embarrassing that world leaders are being ambushed on visits to the WH, and having to respond to easily debunked conspiracy theories? All so they can continue to push their crazy talking points to their base?
Victor is the specialist on the genocide topic.
We should ask him whats really going on over there .
Vic, are White being victims of genocide ?
