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
I mean I doubt many people would disagree that national electoral politics is fueled by emotion but I'm not seeing too much of a difference in those regards between "Kamala is for they/them" and "Trump is a threat to democracy". Both parties play to the fears of their bases.
Takes a wild shot at his own sign up date despite it being visible on his screen, and misses.
Calls another poster stupid.
I'm not seeing too much of a difference in those regards between "Kamala is for they/them" and "Trump is a threat to democracy".
You don't see that one of these is a substantially bigger issue, and is actually happening?
I'm just scrolling through my twitter feed and its literally NFTs and Republican outrage baiting
people still use twitter?
'US trade court blocks Trump tariffs, saying president 'exceeded any authority''
However, during a White House event earlier held before the ruling was published, Trump was asked about a nickname given to him by some critics on Wall Street: Taco - which stands for "Trump always chickens out".
Hahahahahahaha
I mean I doubt many people would disagree that national electoral politics is fueled by emotion but I'm not seeing too much of a difference in those regards between "Kamala is for they/them" and "Trump is a threat to democracy". Both parties play to the fears of their bases.
Luckbox, you sound like a total idiot when you say stuff like this. Just because two things are similar in some respect does not mean that they are similar things in the respects that matter. Yes, both parties "play to the fears of their bases", and that's where the similarity between those things ends. This should be self evident to any functioning adult, so either you're trolling or what you thought was Covid was actually brain worms.
If you don't believe me, try applying your reasoning to apple juice and urine.
Luckbox, you sound like a total idiot when you say stuff like this. Just because two things are similar in some respect does not mean that they are similar things in the respects that matter. Yes, both parties "play to the fears of their bases", and that's where the similarity between those things ends. This should be self evident to any functioning adult, so either you're trol
Apple juice and urine are still both mostly water.
Not sure how close you're expecting the fear based campaign rhetoric of two opposing parties to be.
A district court just decided that the administration doesn't have the power to remove parole from aliens even if the law is very clear about that being the case.
N-th case of abusive dictatorial uses of court orders
A district court just decided that the administration doesn't have the power to remove parole from aliens even if the law is very clear about that being the case.
N-th case of abusive dictatorial uses of court orders
And how did you decide that this decision was wrong, professor? I can't find the full decision, and I certainly can't conclude anything one way or the other from that X snippet.
And how did you decide that this decision was wrong, professor? I can't find the full decision, and I certainly can't conclude anything one way or the other from that X snippet.
That obviously biased twitter account not inspiring confidence for some reason?
And they're similar colours too! So I'm guessing you don't care much which one you get served for breakfast. Both sides mostly water, mostly yellow.
This should be self evident to any functioning adult, so either you're trolling or what you thought was Covid was actually brain worms.
He's trolling but also he genuinely believes this **** is clever.
And they're similar colours too! So I'm guessing you don't care much which one you get served for breakfast. Both sides mostly water, mostly yellow.
I stopped drinking apple juice for breakfast when I was three.
I drink orange juice like a grown adult.
I stopped drinking apple juice for breakfast when I was three.
I drink orange juice like a grown adult.
Bolded is certainly debatable judging on recent performance.
I really would though like you guys to explain how the fear mongering that the Democrats do is so fundamentally different from the fear mongering that the GOP does or why whatever that difference is matters
I didn't look at the poster's X account, and I don't have a snap opinion on whether the decision is correct under prevailing law.
But that's sort of my point. If I don't know immediately, then I don't see how the professor could either.
I don't immediately draw conclusions about legal opinions unless I have prior knowledge of the legal issues or at least have read the opinion.
I'm sure he is furiously researching the question now in an attempt to justify his snap reaction. Then he will come back and say that he knew everything before he posted his snap reaction, which will be untrue, but also impossible to disprove.
I really would though like you guys to explain how the fear mongering that the Democrats do is so fundamentally different from the fear mongering that the GOP does or why whatever that difference is matters
Because you're seeing "fear mongering" as the defining characteristic rather than what the fear is actually of.
If one person is telling you to be afraid of ghosts and another person is telling you to be afraid of the serial killer who just escaped from maiximum security prison and is loose in your neghbourhood, are they both "fear mongering", or is there a bit more to it?
And how did you decide that this decision was wrong, professor? I can't find the full decision, and I certainly can't conclude anything one way or the other from that X snippet.
If Biden can parole (from deportation) them as a class, Trump can remove it as a class ffs.
Anyway wonna bet appeal (if it's at least 2 conservatives) or scotus reverses?
If Biden can parole (from deportation) them as a class, Trump can remove it as a class ffs.
Anyway wonna bet appeal (if it's at least 2 conservatives) or scotus reverses?
I stand corrected. He was just winging it.
I of course don't want to bet. As I said, I haven't read the opinion. That's why I'm not flying around with hot takes about whether it was obviously correct or incorrect.
I really would though like you guys to explain how the fear mongering that the Democrats do is so fundamentally different from the fear mongering that the GOP does or why whatever that difference is matters
Do you have some weird fetish for having people explain simple concepts to you like you're a small child?
This is an accurate description of about 10% of the total posts in this forum, and maybe 20% of LB's posts.
? i think be abused the letter of the law introducing these tariffs, even if it has a wide scope, IEEA didn't allow for it.
But i am not even sure cases will be heard on that anymore given his backtracking
He didn't backtrack, cases were heard, and i was right 50 days ago.
See how that works rococo?
I didn't look at the poster's X account, and I don't have a snap opinion on whether the decision is correct under prevailing law.
But that's sort of my point. If I don't know immediately, then I don't see how the professor could either.
I don't immediately draw conclusions about legal opinions unless I have prior knowledge of the legal issues or at least have read the opinion.
Because same as trump abusing IEEPA (which *i said a month ago in this very forum was obviously illegal*), this is not something that came out today as a topic.
It's stuff that has already been discussed by actually capable rightwing people like we do discuss all trump admin attempts to push laws and interpretations and see what sticks.
That's the actual project 2025, to get decisions that change the nation on the topics over which leftist scotus majorities warped the constitution beyond recognition weakening it a lot.
Then there are the trump club attempts to bludgeon his way through and those get lolled at by courts as expected (like the birthright citizenship order, the tariff shenanigans and others).
