• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

Andy_Ross said:
He's taking in a tremendous amount of money with the tariffs, his economy is going to be even better this time.

Trump on Jerome Powell: "I think he's terrible, but I can't complain because we had the most successful administration economically in the history of our country."
https://twitter.com/x/status/1912929732389110260
Click to expand...
I think maybe he keeps Powell around as a scapegoat. If he doesn't lower interest rates, Herr Schitler can blame him if when the economy tanks.
 
Not a cult

Van Drew on Trump's trade war: "He's gonna look them straight in the eye -- 'This is the deal. Do you want to participate? Do you want to make it good for you and us? Or do you want to just sit back and let it happen to you?'"
 
Isn't it a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison for the President, VP, or any senior White House employee, to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the IRS to conduct an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer?
 
Andy_Ross said:
Isn't it a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison for the President, VP, or any senior White House employee, to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the IRS to conduct an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer?
Click to expand...
Isn't it a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison for the President, VP, or any senior White House employee, to be a complete ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dumbass? Unfortunately, no.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Isn't it a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison for the President, VP, or any senior White House employee, to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the IRS to conduct an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer?
Click to expand...
26 U.S.C. § 7217. However, subsection (c) offers several get-out-of-jail-free options for a President who wants to weaponize the IRS against his political enemies. Also it's unclear how this would apply following the Supreme Court ruling that says the President is immune from prosecution for offenses committed as part of his core duties. Directing the IRS could be considered a core duty.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
REPORTER: There are 2 deceased following that shooting at Florida State University. Is there any changes you want to see to gun legislation?

TRUMP: Look, I'm a big advocate of the 2nd Amendment ... these things are terrible but the gun doesn't do the shooting, the people do

https://twitter.com/x/status/1912969532517364029
Click to expand...
Of all the lazy-ass defenses for unrestricted gun-rights, this old "guns don't kill people, people do" is the silliest. Has anyone in favor of firearms regulation ever suggested anything other than that they are meant to reduce the number of instances of people using the guns? That the whole point of the push for some common-sense regulation is that, indeed, "the people do," and not that somehow the guns do it on their own? It's a stupid meme that's used to argue against something that nobody is arguing for.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
REPORTER: There are 2 deceased following that shooting at Florida State University. Is there any changes you want to see to gun legislation?

TRUMP: Look, I'm a big advocate of the 2nd Amendment ... these things are terrible but the gun doesn't do the shooting, the people do

https://twitter.com/x/status/1912969532517364029
Click to expand...

Hence why he's employed RFK Jr in order to reduce the number of people.
 
Random said:
Because they have a big psychological need to convince themselves that they are in it for the "greater good" or other kind of noble cause garbage. No one wants to think of themselves as evil or selfish, even if they clearly are to an outside observer, so they develop a wall of rationalizations. They haven't gotten to the point where they can overlook the whole Nazi=Evil idea and still maintain their cloak of denial.

Yet.
Click to expand...

That was the surprisingly thing about the signal chat. Vance et al thought they were patriots.
 
Norman Alexander said:
And Joe Biden is a happy man because YOU'RE the worst, Donny!
Click to expand...
I try to watch as little of him as possible, but he looks like an exhausted, old, and bitter man. He looks like he lost every swing state rather than winning them.

Oh, and he still looks like he can barely keep his eyes open. Hope he closes them for good before too long.
 
Hercules56 said:
I think Supreme Court may decide to punk out on this one and split it two ways.

Declare that ONLY children of people here legally, such as those on a tourist/work/education Visa or Permanent Residents, get automatic citizenship. But a pregnant woman who climbs the border fence and drops a baby doesn't get it.
Click to expand...
If one simply makes an interpretive judgment of what one thinks the Constitution ought to have said, then all other aspects of birthright citizenship are equally vulnerable to interpretive judgment. Maybe legal aliens shouldn't get it either unless they're all permanent residents. Maybe it isn't enough for one parent to be legal or permanent or even a citizen. Maybe this maybe that. Of course one can hope things don't become that much more stupid, repressive, and dictatorial, but those hopes keep getting dashed.

I think you may be right in predicting that this is the resoundingly stupid and foresightless mistake the Court will make. They are, after all....well they are what they are... With a president who has handed almost every branch of government to a racist Nazi billionaire, is already figuring out how he can win an unconstitutional third term and how he can exile American citizens to foreign prisons, no bad news would surprise me now.
 
turingtest said:
Of all the lazy-ass defenses for unrestricted gun-rights, this old "guns don't kill people, people do" is the silliest. Has anyone in favor of firearms regulation ever suggested anything other than that they are meant to reduce the number of instances of people using the guns?
Click to expand...
I think the people making that argument has an old-fashioned black-and-white view of humanity where you're either a honest person or an dishonest person, and in their eyes, dishonest people will get their hands on guns anyway, even if they don't have the rights to them.

They don't think about scenarios like a teen stealing his father's glock to shoot up his school, or a person flying into a fit of rage and shooting their partner, or a kid getting their hands on grampa's shotgun and accidentally shooting their brother. Or, for that matter, suicides that might not have happened, or been successful, had the person not at some point earlier purchased a firearm. Or a dozen other scenarios.

Gun regulations don't exist to disarm the population, they exist for the same reason driving a car requires a driver's license: Some people actually shouldn't drive cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom