President Trump

True_Blue69 said:
Fair play to him he sounds like he has finally made a breakthrough with Russia and Ukraine. No one knows what any peace deal may look like and Zelenskyy will have to agree to whatever is on the table.

How can anyone not think this good news other than base it on their hatred of Trump? Any other president or politician did this they would be being praised.
Click to expand...
For me the tragedy is that whatever the final peace deal is it will probably look remarkably like the one Boris johnson torpedoed back in 2022 but with 100's of thousands of deaths on both sides in the years since. :-(
 
BigJoe#1 said:
But it is a start is it not? That is all we can ask for.
Click to expand...

I hope it leads to something. I hope that Ukraine aren't strong armed into agreeing a deal that isn't just (unlikely I know) and I hope Russia don't get a free pass by getting everything they want from their own actions (much more likely).

The time to celebrate will be when that happens.
 
Dax777 said:
Let me try a hypothetical on you for size. Suppose a judge somewhere decides he wants to rule on whether Donald Trump can have JD Vance as his Vice President on the grounds that JD may not be married to an American and thus this might constitutes a potential conflict of interests for the Country. Based on that claim the judge orders a temporary injunction barring JD as Vice President until the Judge is able to have a full hearing on the facts...

What would you say Trump's response should be?
Click to expand...
It’s quite simple. Musk himself said it the other day: The courts cannot control the legitimate action of the Executive.
The important word is ‘legitimate’. The courts, however, have a duty to control the ILLEGITIMATE actions of the executive. There are three co-equal parts of the constitution. If one part becomes dominant, the checks and balances cease to exist.
Now (Leaving aside for the minute the issue of a temporary injunction) the question in your example is: what law or constitutional provision makes lawful a decision of a judge to estopp the appointment of Vance as VP? In giving such a ruling the judge is required to apply a law to the facts and give his reasoning in a written judgement. If he is wrong, the correct response is to appeal. The judge may not apply a fictional law, simply because he does not approve personally of events.
While waiting for the appeal, the judgement must be obeyed.
A temporary stay makes no difference other than the judge is signalling that there arguments on both sides which which need airing at a full hearing. So, if there is a law or constitutional provision which MAY enable the appointment to be estopped, the judge will raise that question while issuing the temporary stay.
You forget an important point in your eg. A judge will not unilaterally decide something, there has to be a party raising the question through an application to the court. If an organisation were to make an application, it must give the legal grounds upon which the application is based. The judge would rule out the case immediately if there were no legal grounds.
 
Last edited:
MillionMilesAway said:
I have no idea how anyone puts up with Sebastian Gorka.
Victoria Darbyshire just had a run in on Newsnight, attack the questioner, attack the questioner, whine, complain, then do what he was complaining over. And of course, not answering questions.
Just a deeply unpleasant persona.
Click to expand...

But thats kind of what news reporting is now ..... that will clip up great to stick on line as click bait tomorrow - what baffles me is why Darbyshire is still there. She could do much better and earn much more ( and not have to declare it to Joe Public to get pelters online ) elsewhere.
 
So - hot on the heels of "Gaza the new Riviera where the Gazans can just fuck off " his new one tonight is " the Ukrainians left or wanting to return home to Mariupol" can forget it because it seems Putin will be happy for him to build a golf resort there .................. fucking beyond mad
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I have no idea how anyone puts up with Sebastian Gorka.
Victoria Darbyshire just had a run in on Newsnight, attack the questioner, attack the questioner, whine, complain, then do what he was complaining over. And of course, not answering questions.
Just a deeply unpleasant persona.
Click to expand...
Saw that. What a horrendous, grotesque character.
Victoria Derbyshire has to put up with some vile individuals of late.

Her composure is an inspiration.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I have no idea how anyone puts up with Sebastian Gorka.
Victoria Darbyshire just had a run in on Newsnight, attack the questioner, attack the questioner, whine, complain, then do what he was complaining over. And of course, not answering questions.
Just a deeply unpleasant persona.
Click to expand...
Definitely something rapey about him.
 

Elon Musk illegally executed a revocation of $80 million in congressionally-appropriated FEMA funding from New York City’s bank accounts​



"This morning, my financial team shockingly uncovered that President Trump and his crony Elon Musk illegally executed a revocation of $80 million in congressionally-appropriated FEMA funding from New York City's bank accounts late yesterday afternoon. This is money that the federal government previously disbursed for shelter and services and is now missing. This highway robbery of our funds directly out of our bank account is a betrayal of everyone who calls New York City home."

"New York City cannot take this lying down. I call on the Mayor to immediately pursue legal action to ensure the tens of millions of dollars stolen by Trump and DOGE are rightfully returned. If instead Mayor Adams continues to be President Trump's pawn, my Office will request to work in partnership with the New York City Law Department to pursue aggressive legal action."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top