Geez. You have got it bad. They have no intention of considering the counterparty nations. If you can justify telling Greenland ‘we will have you’ when offered co-operation on mining, security and other matters, fine. Note the methods Trump refused to rule out were both military and economic. No wonder that Danish MP said “Trump, fuck off.”
US Politics Thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
Its not a lie. Its an assumption. Lets see if he is right or wrong in December
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 70,328
Sounds like he’s trying to copy Putin’s “Russia first” policy on Ukraine.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 23,223
So you're in favour of a colonial expansion of the US, using military force where necessary to gain control of territories and infrastructure that might be of economic benefit to the US?
Yeah, while you're at it, maybe the UK and France should invade Egypt to get the Suez canal back.
You don't understand Trump but it actually isn't that complicated. He doesn't give answers related to strategy. It's like asking Pep if he'd rule out using inverted Fullbacks or whether Kev will start or not. Its a stupid question. The answer is always the same. All options are available.
Don't ask dumb questions is what he is saying to them
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 70,328
Ah, it’s all a smokescreen and the US is actually buying Malbranque instead.
Im not concerned with the UK and France. Im more concerned about China.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 23,223
Not answering the question, I see.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
We all had to learn about this as high schoolers here in America. A few folks could use a refresher.
en.wikipedia.org
And if anyone's seen "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" perhaps you'll recall it mentioned. Irony of ironies, the teacher in the scene is Ben Stein, former Nixon speechwriter.
Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act - Wikipedia
And if anyone's seen "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" perhaps you'll recall it mentioned. Irony of ironies, the teacher in the scene is Ben Stein, former Nixon speechwriter.
I guess as an American you were breastfed the goodies baddies narrative, what with the never ending wars you've been involved in.
China are now the baddies as they threaten your hegemony.
As a Caucasian I realise that I don't look Chinese but that doesn't mean they're the enemy anymore than my fellow Caucasian Trump is my friend.
And culinary speaking they've given me more pleasure than the burger and popcorn.
Scottyboi
Well-Known Member
Well I hope it blows up in his fat orange face.
As a Non- Caucasian, I am less interested in the racial component of those who are or aren't on my side.
Generally, i am pro- Western hegemony, i have no interest in a multipolar world as that would simply bring more wars until there is a ruling hegemony. So long as there is one, I'd vote it be Western.
Im sure voting wont be an option when the ruling hegemony stops being Western. But to each their own.
…or I might lie to you.
I couldn’t care less who is in power in US, provided they respect the constitution and the rule of law. Maga do neither. It sends a disastrous message to the world, especially the dictators, if the leading democracy is run by liars.
Your continuous justification for them does you no favours. I get that you support Trumps general policy but I do not understand why you swallow obvious lies and then somehow justify them.
What rule of law or article of the constitution has Maga violated?
And what obvious lies have i swallowed or justified.
I could cite hundreds, well tens, but I ll stick with one or two.
Constitutional laws etc.
1. Executive order to remove birthright citizenship has already been struck down by the court as unconstitutional.
2. Sacking of inspectors general requires: 30 days notice, written cause, approval by congress. None of these conditions had been met yet the inspectors have been locked out of their offices.
3. Doge violates the requirement of federal agencies to be transparent and to recruit people from a range of political stances. Writs have already been served.
Lies swallowed.
1. Just today you have justified the lie that drilling will bring down prices saying it was an adequate answer to the question about action on prices. Maga know perfectly well that the US is already operating at full capacity and a record to boot and has no facility to process more. US imports 35% of its energy and demand is rising so imports are rising. US cannot control those prices.
2. You attempted to justify maga’s mendacious characterisation of J6 as a peaceful protest. I remember posting quite a full explanation of why it was an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, not a protest. You did not accept that, despite being challenged by several other posters to state that it was not a protest.
I don’t need to go on, do I?
No you couldn't cite hundreds. Since you are the type to give no leeway, you should be happy to get none. We can conclude you lied that you can list hundreds becoz U cant
I think its not totally clear how the constitution should be interpreted here. In my estimation, he is wrong, but i agree its a clarification worth testing. And they are. Lets see how the courts interpret. Scholar s have lined up on both sides of the argument with colorable arguments.
This is simply someone having a different understanding of the law. The courts will sought it out. Must note; never heard you once pipe up about any Biden interpretation of the constitution that was shutdown by the courts. Interesting that.
Again, this is not part of any article of the constitution. Its from a Congressional act, which itself might be unconstitutional. Trump and the Presidency is purposely challenging the legitimacy of that act. As it clearly reads as an overstepping of congressional authority. They want a constitutional battle on this issue and more likely than not, they will win because Congress really doesn't have the authority to require or demand a reason for such Executive actions.
Read the Constitution!!!!
Again, you seem to struggle to understand what lies are. A difference in opinion is NOT a lie. Just a difference in views.
If DOGE doesn't satisfy the requirements of a temporary agency, it will simply reorganize as an advisory agency. This is a dumb fight. But have at it you or the Dems want.
The bolded is a lie, U.S is NOT operating at full capacity. Another lie. Its operating at the highest capacity yet, but that's not to be confused with full capacity. It can increase its capacity and will under Trump.
And its not a lie that higher supply will reduce price. And lower cost for producing goods will lead to lower final proces is not a lie, ots a sensible assumption. We should wait and see of it comes true or false.
The liw is you pretending you know the outcome ahead of time.
You are regurgitating 2020. Its 2025. Welcome the present. Like i told you and many others all along, that a majority of Americans don't care about January 6th. We don't need to guess who was right about that now. :)
Unbelievable. You are still trying to justify your lack of scepticism. You are also not up to date. Just on the first point, and I am going no further, The birthright order has already gone to court and been ruled as unconstitutional. It is simply not so that the constitution is unclear. It is clear as a bell.
Maga, of course, make up some sophistry to pretend that “subject to the jusrisdiction” means something other than what it says. You should read the judges remarks, I’m sure you can Google them. He was a Republican appointment. You are infected by the cult. I’m out of this conversation now, I have no wish to indulge your nonsense.
There is nothing more annoying than reading a pompous response by someone who actually does not understand how things work.
Dude, the Judge put in a temporary order to stop the rule because he thinks ot might be unconstitutional. That's what he is supposed to do. Soon enough, he'll render a full decision.
Regardless of what he decides, for Trump or against Trump. Whoever loses, would appeal to the appellate courts and they will review and render a decision. Then whoever loses would eventually then appeal to the Supreme Court and hope Court picks up the issue and gives a final verdict.
So when i say, its a constitutional interpretation issue that Trump wants to litigate. That's what that means... I keep forgetting I have to spell this out for you because you don't fully grasp how things work here. The fight has just started.
But if you wanna be dishonest and scamper off when you are caught in your own styled argument... Feel free :)
I just watched. My goodness. She came with some fire :)