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's press conference after the tariff decision was predictably unhinged.
The president claimed without evidence that the Supreme Court is "swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think."
Mr. Trump harshly criticized the justices who ruled against him, hinting without evidence that the court has been "swayed by foreign interests."
The president was asked to explain what he meant when he said he believes the Supreme Court has been "swayed" by foreign interests.
"Well, I think that foreign interests are represented by people that I believe have undue influence, they have a lot of influence, over the Supreme Court," he said. "Whether it's through fear or respect or friendships, I don't know. But I know some of the people that were involved on the other side, and I don't like them. I think they're real slimeballs."
A reporter asked the president if he regrets nominating dissenting justices Barrett and Gorsuch. The president said he didn't want to say that, but lobbed personal insults at the justices.
"I don't want to say whether or not I regret. I think their decision was terrible," he said, pausing before continuing. "I think it's an embarrassment to their families, you want to know the truth, the two of them."
It also sounds like Trump will do his best to make people go through court proceedings (which will be successful) in order to get refunds.
What don't you understand? It's obvious from abroad - just look at the polls that show how many Americans thought that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife, or who couldn't place Canada on a map. Americans have a well earned reputation abroad for being the most ignorant people on the whole planet and kept in ignorance so that the US can continue to go about its "business" abroad without
This is silly and the bolded is wildly inaccurate.
only half the tariffs were ruled illegal he will find some other bs way to readd them
All the tariffs that Trump recently imposed pursuant to IEEPA were deemed unlawful. And that was the only question before the Court.
It isn't written in cuneiform. You should be able to read and understand it. At a minimum, you might want to read a reputable news source about the decision before opining.
tbf he is an expert on being swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think
It isn't written in cuneiform. You should be able to read and understand it. At a minimum, you might want to read a reputable news source about the decision before opining.
Who would you suggest Racheal Maddow or Brian Steltzer ?
I'll rely on Smerconish tomorrow for a non biased show
I was too busy vacationing to stay up to date on the news.
I am just gonna say none of this surprised me and my thoughts align with Roccoco’s almost exactly.
https://youtu.be/88XP4fAyV6o?si=oXQgPqj7...
I actually disagree with the conclusion* but the criticisms are valid.
*America is still the greatest country in the world… it’s just not as great as it used to be and we need to do better.
I have a lot of criticisms of the United States, especially U.S. foreign policy, but it just isn't the case that U.S. education is mostly devoted to describing the U.S. as the good guy and everyone else as the bad guy. That fantasy is popular among Europeans who hate the U.S., but it wasn't even true when I went to public school in a red state in the 1980s, and it certainly isn't true today. And for as long as I can remember, it has been fashionable at the university level for professors to be deeply skeptical of U.S. foreign policy. I'll give you an example. I was in college during the first Gulf War at a school that did have a reputation as a hotbed of progressive politics. The school newspaper did a blind survey of 30 or 40 professors and asked them whether they thought U.S. involvement was a good idea. There were a few who said they were unsure, but only one professor who said that he thought it was a good idea, even though the use of force in that particular case had broad support among European governments and was much easier to defend on moral and practical grounds than either the Vietnam War or the second Iraq War.
Who would you suggest Racheal Maddow or Brian Steltzer ?
I'll rely on Smerconish tomorrow for a non biased show
Read the BBC. Read the WSJ. Read the NYT. Read Reuters. Read the AP. It doesn't matter. None of them are lying about what the opinion says, and they all describe the opinion in more or less the same way. Or you could be a really big boy and just read the opinion yourself.
Trump is significantly overstating his unilateral authority to levy these exact same tariffs pursuant to other authorizing statutes. But take a step back and realize the logic behind what Trump is saying. He essentially is arguing that he had numerous lawful ways to levy these exact same tariffs but he chose the unlawful way and in the process created a huge mess for himself. In other words, he is implicitly making the case that he is an incompetent moron.
Trump is significantly overstating his unilateral authority to levy these exact same tariffs pursuant to other authorizing statutes. But take a step back and realize the logic behind what Trump is saying. He essentially is arguing that he had numerous lawful ways to levy these exact same tariffs but he chose the unlawful way and in the process created a huge mess for himself.
He’s also trying to make it seem like applying a different tariff on a different piece of legislation means the tariffs were not overturned. They absolutely were and there is no continuity between these new tariffs and the IEEPA tariffs. These new tariffs cannot be applied retroactively.
Oh is it already a day that ends in 'y' again?
He’s also trying to make it seem like applying a different tariff on a different piece of legislation means the tariffs were not overturned. They absolutely were and there is no continuity between these new tariffs and the IEEPA tariffs. These new tariffs cannot be applied retroactively.
Also correct. What you are describing is mostly just standard lying from Trump rather than a logic fail.
I don’t expect any of them fix his retroactive problems but I would expect he has a few options to impose the same tariffs under a different statute. Realistically, he should be able to get the congress to grant him these powers on a temporary basis given the Republicans control both houses. The arrogance of just claiming the power lies in the executive branch is certainly a feature of this administration.
I don’t expect any of them fix his retroactive problems but I would expect he has a few options to impose the same tariffs under a different statute. Realistically, he should be able to get the congress to grant him these powers on a temporary basis given the Republicans control both houses. The arrogance of just claiming the power lies in the executive branch is certainly a
That would require nuking the filibuster, changing the current procedures on the omnibus bill, or getting enough Dem senators to come over to his side. In other words, pretty unlikely but not impossible.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh noted that the majority didn't say whether or how the tariffs should be refunded (presumably because those questions weren't explicitly before the court), and he did some hand wringing about what a mess it will be. He can **** off with that nonsense. It is beyond absurd to imply that we should allow the president to violate the law if he creates a hu
Just out of curiosity, if a judge decides the situation simply isn't covered by the law (or could equally go either way) then which way are they supposed to vote? Can they abstain? Or is the default that the legal power doesn't exists unless they decide the situation was covered/decidable, or do they default to not interfering.
A more important question. What happens now regarding the illegally imposed tariffs. How do people get them back?
Just out of curiosity, if a judge decides the situation simply isn't covered by the law (or could equally go either way) then which way are they supposed to vote? Can they abstain? Or is the default that the legal power doesn't exists unless they decide the situation was covered/decidable, or do they default to not interfering.
This is too broad a question for a simple answer. In some cases, the question wouldn't even make sense. For example, in a criminal case, you either have reasonable doubt or you do not. If you aren't certain whether a person committed a crime, that implies a not guilty verdict. In this case, the major questions doctrine on which Roberts relied effectively says that if Congress intends to delegate its authority to a federal agency on a matter of major political or economic significance, it must do so clearly and explicitly. In this case, it wouldn't make much sense for someone like Roberts to say that he was uncertain whether Congress had explicitly and clearly delegated tariff authority.
A more important question. What happens now regarding the illegally imposed tariffs. How do people get them back?
Attached is an article. In the ordinary course course, the process would be handled by a combination of the CIT and CBP. Trump seems intent on making the process as expensive and burdensome as he can. And I suspect that he will engage in the sickening strategy of describing companies that seek refunds as unpatriotic enemies of the administration.
I have a lot of criticisms of the United States, especially U.S. foreign policy, but it just isn't the case that U.S. education is mostly devoted to describing the U.S. as the good guy and everyone else as the bad guy. That fantasy is popular among Europeans who hate the U.S., but it wasn't even true when I went to public school in a red state in the 1980s, and it certainly isn
That's all very well and you'd expect university professors to be sceptical about US foreign policy, but biggerboat was expressing his frustration at not being able to understand how "stupid and horrible" the US is for voting for Trump, and graduates don't form the bulk of his vote.
All the tariffs that Trump recently imposed pursuant to IEEPA were deemed unlawful. And that was the only question before the Court.
then why are major news sources saying its only half? I feel like most tariffs on Canada are still in place. I think the court case was mostly about the "liberation day" ones but hes been bussy outside of that! I believe his justification for Canadian tarrifs was fentanyl and we were like 0.001% of fetanyl imports. we ship are drugs to Australia not america!
I don’t expect any of them fix his retroactive problems but I would expect he has a few options to impose the same tariffs under a different statute. Realistically, he should be able to get the congress to grant him these powers on a temporary basis given the Republicans control both houses. The arrogance of just claiming the power lies in the executive branch is certai
Rand Paul and Chuck Grassley publicly praised the ruling and House GOPs joined Democrats to defeat a measure trying to pre-empt this ruling and giving Trump the tariff powers.
I think people vastly under-estimate how much pressure the GOP House members and Senators up for re-election are under to rein the tariff shenanigans in. They do not want to defy Trump but the tariffs issue has demonstratably already forced some to defect.
Like you need to understand a lot of Red Staters rely heavily on rural communities that are most impacted by tariffs, which hurt both their costs of products and export prospects. The last thing they need is Trump going full moron again.
then why are major news sources saying its only half? I feel like most tariffs on Canada are still in place. I think the court case was mostly about the "liberation day" ones but hes been bussy outside of that! I believe his justification for Canadian tarrifs was fentanyl and we were like 0.001% of fetanyl imports. we ship are drugs to Australia not america!
As explained to you numerous times, it's because there were other tariffs imposed with authorities not tied to IEEPA.
I however don't know how "half" came about. IEEPA underlied the blanket tariffs that applied to everyone. Ironically, the ones left in place are primarily on countries that caved and agreed to a deal under duress.
Also correct. What you are describing is mostly just standard lying from Trump rather than a logic fail.
Trump doesn't so much lie as just say whatever makes him feel/look good and not impossibly inept.
He often ends up looking impossibly inept and totally unhinged in the process but if you view his words and actions through the lens of narcissism to the point of complete detachment from objective truths, then they all make sense.
Trump doesn't so much lie as just say whatever makes him feel/look good and not impossibly inept.
He often ends up looking impossibly inept and totally unhinged in the process but if you view his words and actions through the lens of narcissism to the point of complete detachment from objective truths, then they all make sense.
This is a pretty good take.
