Trump: “We were losing hundreds of billions of dollars with China,” he said. “Now we're essentially not doing business with China. Therefore, we're saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Very simple."
It literally makes one think of a 75 IQ.
Doesn’t say much for you then does it?
Trump has properties all over the World, employs tens of thousands of families, wins golf tourneys at 80 yrs old, aces cognitive tests, can answer idiotic questions all day long from liberals, dodges bullets, put China in a state of unrest virtually overnight, has a great family, beats felony court cases like a drum while getting 34 citations, a 2-time President of the United States (probably will be the first 3rd term President in a heck of a long time) and has the most powerful liberal businessmen in the World coming to apologize for their misgivings.
So you n the old man must have combined IQ’s close to 9, 10 at best.
Surely it would involve changing the entire way you do things?
I wouldn’t encourage it, sets a bad precedent. Not sure how it would change anything in my life but that will be up to the People…and no, I’m not talking about Venezuelan gang members as many of you believe when using this term as Madison did.
BREAKING: Another $70 million F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet from the USS Harry S. Truman has been lost in the Red Sea—the second jet from the carrier lost in just over a week. -CNN
See??? I'm telling you, this is why you never hire these goddam habitual drunkards. We don't allow them to become citizens, so why in Christ's name would you hire one to be the goddam Defense secretary?!?!?
That is absolutely untrue, Discoo. Whoever told you that was lying to you. See, e.g., United States v. Trump, Case No. 23-cr-80101, (S.D. Florida) Dkt. 672 (dismissing case because appointment of special counsel violated Appointments Clause of U.S. Constitution).
District judges do not have the ultimate authority to declare laws unconstitutional with national effect; that power lies with the U.S. Supreme Court under Marbury v. Madison (1803). While district courts can rule on constitutional issues within specific cases, these decisions are not binding beyond their jurisdiction and are subject to review by higher courts, as mandated by Article III of the Constitution and the federal judicial hierarchy. The cited case, United States v. Trump, likely involved a procedural dismissal (Appointments Clause), not a sweeping invalidation of law. Binding national precedent, as emphasized in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), reaffirms that only the Supreme Court has the authority to declare laws unconstitutional for the entire nation.
Thanks, Biff. But I was responding to this particular piece of idiocy: "A district judge does NOT have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional." That is untrue. Someone lied to Disco and filled his head with goddam foolishness. And now you are egging him on like he's your own personal minstrel or something.
A district court does indeed have the power to declare a law unconstitutional and district courts have done so hundreds of times in addition to the example I provided. See, e.g., Ted "Snowback" Cruz for Senate v. Federal Election Commission, 542 F.Supp.3d 1 (D. D.C.) (district court biffs section of federal 2002 Campaign Reform Act regarding use of campaign contributions); Windsor v. U.S., 833 F.Supp.2d 394 (S.D. New York) (section 3 of federal DOMA is unconstitutional).
Come on, let’s keep it simple. Only SCOTUS can rule on Trump….unless he disagrees with them. Easy.
Biden’s activist judge, Jamal Whitehead, has ordered Trump to admit 12,000 refugees, defying the president’s lawful border security measures. This unconstitutional ruling violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants Trump authority to set refugee caps (8 U.S.C. § 1157).
SCOTUS precedent, like Trump v. Hawaii (2018), upholds this power. Whitehead’s order usurps Congress’s role and ignores INS v. Chadha (1983), which limits judicial overreach.
Federal judges are out of control, issuing nationwide injunctions to paralyze Trump’s agenda. SCOTUS must act, as it signaled in Labrador v. Poe (2024), to stop this tyranny. Christopher Calvin Reid- retired attorney
Suck on that, libs.
The ruling was made by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If Christopher Calvin Reid (rightwing, Heritage Foundation loser) doesn’t know that, it’s not surprising his law career is over.
Trump: “We don't do much business with Canada.” (Actually, in 2024 the U.S. did over $600 billion in trade with Canada, including $350B in exports and $250B in imports)
The White House has backed off President Donald Trump’s stunning social media proposal to change the name of Veterans Day to “Victory Day for World War I” and will settle for keeping the name while adding a proclamation.
Remember. Good stuff is Trump. Bad stuff is always someone else.
Why does India and Pakistan concern the U.S.?
For that matter, why do we fund Russia vs Ukraine?
Why do a bunch of fentanyl-addicted hicks dying of overdoses in West Virginia concern anybody that graduated high-school and isn’t married to their cousin?
Trump has properties all over the World, employs tens of thousands of families, wins golf tourneys at 80 yrs old, aces cognitive tests, can answer idiotic questions all day long from liberals, dodges bullets, put China in a state of unrest virtually overnight, has a great family, beats felony court cases like a drum while getting 34 citations, a 2-time President of the United States (probably will be the first 3rd term President in a heck of a long time) and has the most powerful liberal businessmen in the World coming to apologize for their misgivings.
So you n the old man must have combined IQ’s close to 9, 10 at best.
Nonequals just got taken out to the woodshed. Spank me!
For that matter, why do we fund Russia vs Ukraine?
Why do a bunch of fentanyl-addicted hicks dying of overdoses in West Virginia concern anybody that graduated high-school and isn’t married to their cousin?
Why do a bunch of fentanyl-addicted hicks dying of overdoses in West Virginia concern anybody that graduated high-school and isn’t married to their cousin?
President Donald Trump just gave a completely incoherent explanation for his impromptu plan to reopen Alcatraz prison in San Francisco Bay. “How will you use it? How did you come up with the idea?” a reporter asked the president on Monday. “Well, I guess I was supposed to be a moviemaker. We’re talking—we started with the moviemaking, and it will end,” Trump replied. “It represents something very strong, very powerful, in terms of law and order. Our country needs law and order. Alcatraz is, I would say, the ultimate, right? Alcatraz, Sing Sing, and Alcatraz, the movies. “But uh, it’s right now a museum, believe it or not. Lotta people go there. It housed the most violent criminals in the world, and nobody ever escaped. One person almost got there, but they, as you know the story, they found his clothing rather badly ripped up, and uh, it was a lot of shark bites, a lot of problems. Nobody’s ever escaped from Alcatraz, and just represented something strong having to do with law and order; we need law and order in this country.” Trump said he hoped to “bring [Alcatraz] back in large form, add a lot.” “It sort of represents something that’s both horrible and beautiful and strong and miserable, weak,” he added. “It’s got a lot of qualities that are interesting.”
