• 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

The Don said:
The four years of his first term were effectively consequence free.

He got almost nothing done of his banner policies (and only those that required dismantling what was already in place, actually building something is completely beyond an individual and/or party which have no interest in governing) and yet attracted more votes when he ran in 2020.

The whole Republican party, and especially the MAGA crowd, have absolutely no interest in getting anything done bar lining their own pockets at the expense of the American public (especially the MAGA base).

If he implements his tariffs, gets his tax cuts, explodes the deficit, spikes inflation and puts a huge drag on the economy, he, the GOP and the right wing mediasphere will blame the Democrats and the Deep State and 50% or thereabouts of the US electorate will believe them.
Click to expand...
The GOP has two priorities. The highest priority is to lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans. The second priority is to kill government to prevent regulations or their enforcement. Anything that might hinder profit for the wealthiest Americans. The idea behind tarriffs is to turn the clock back to how the US government was funded in the late 18th and early 19th century. It both favors US manufacturers and forces the country to be more self reliant. It's a protectionist move. Something the Republican party has been staunchly against for my entire life. But hugely benefits Musk.

They're talking about a 100% tarriff against Chinese cars. Chinese EVs are selling for under $20K in China. Whether we like it or not Tesla is building the most affordable EVs made in the US and the cheapest of them, the Model 3 is selling for double that. Welcome America to crony capitalism at its worst.
 
Yeah, that. There is no way back now. If any state failed to certify because he is an insurrectionist, court would need to step in.

Plus my point is that MAGA will support until they find out what they got.
 
The Don said:
I'm sure that, in the case of treasonous actions that imperil the United States, it's possible to strip the perpetrator of their citizenship.

Given that the President has complete immunity then it could be argued that any attempt to charge someone for actions taken when they were President, were a past President, were thinking about becoming President or indeed were eating President brand Camembert is treason and so stripping that person of their citizenship is fine and dandy.

So long as it's a Republican who was charged - in the case of a Democrat that's fine.
Click to expand...
Only under certain conditions, none of which Jack Smith has committed:

"The premise of citizenship loss among natural-born citizens is based on the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. The apex court has firmly established that natural-born citizens cannot lose their nationality unless they make an explicit and voluntary decision to renounce it. Notably, this relinquishment has to be intentional; a mere accident cannot strip one of their citizenship.

However, certain actions and behaviors are deemed inconsistent with the role of a U.S. citizen, which may result in the loss of nationality. These include:

  • Oath of allegiance to a foreign country: Taking an oath of loyalty to a foreign country, mainly if the individual is an adult and the oath is not taken under duress, may result in the loss of U.S. citizenship.
  • Service in the foreign military: A natural-born citizen serving as an officer in a foreign military engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving in any military force of a foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer may lose their citizenship.
  • Working for a foreign government: If a natural-born citizen accepts, serves in, or performs duties related to specific positions or offices in the government of a foreign country, they may lose their U.S. citizenship. This applies mainly if the individual is 18 and the role requires an oath of allegiance to the foreign government.
  • Renunciation of citizenship: An explicit renunciation of U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer in a foreign country can result in the loss of citizenship. This takes place through a formal procedure defined by law, which involves a series of steps, including a formal statement of renunciation, an interview with a consular officer, and signing an oath of renunciation. Once this process is complete, the individual’s U.S. citizenship is officially renounced."
 
Trump on Trudeau

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Many people in Canada LOVE being the 51st State. The United States can no longer suffer the massive Trade Deficits and Subsidies that Canada needs to stay afloat. Justin Trudeau knew this, and resigned. If Canada merged with the U.S., there would be no Tariffs, taxes would go way down, and they would be TOTALLY SECURE from the threat of the Russian and Chinese Ships that are constantly surrounding them. Together, what a great Nation it would be!!!
Click to expand...
 
Stacyhs said:
Only under certain conditions, none of which Jack Smith has committed:

"The premise of citizenship loss among natural-born citizens is based on the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. The apex court has firmly established that natural-born citizens cannot lose their nationality unless they make an explicit and voluntary decision to renounce it. Notably, this relinquishment has to be intentional; a mere accident cannot strip one of their citizenship.

However, certain actions and behaviors are deemed inconsistent with the role of a U.S. citizen, which may result in the loss of nationality. These include:

  • Oath of allegiance to a foreign country: Taking an oath of loyalty to a foreign country, mainly if the individual is an adult and the oath is not taken under duress, may result in the loss of U.S. citizenship.
  • Service in the foreign military: A natural-born citizen serving as an officer in a foreign military engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving in any military force of a foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer may lose their citizenship.
  • Working for a foreign government: If a natural-born citizen accepts, serves in, or performs duties related to specific positions or offices in the government of a foreign country, they may lose their U.S. citizenship. This applies mainly if the individual is 18 and the role requires an oath of allegiance to the foreign government.
  • Renunciation of citizenship: An explicit renunciation of U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer in a foreign country can result in the loss of citizenship. This takes place through a formal procedure defined by law, which involves a series of steps, including a formal statement of renunciation, an interview with a consular officer, and signing an oath of renunciation. Once this process is complete, the individual’s U.S. citizenship is officially renounced."
Click to expand...
Hard to keep up with developments here, and I mentioned this in the "fascism" thread elsewhere. Of course the idea of throwing Smith out is insanely preposterous and as unamerican as pissing on the flag and then some, but Trump's argument in this case is the simple one that he has been granted absolute immunity by the Supremos, so I suppose if he just says "I'm throwing Jack Smith out of the country officially," he can do it. In fact, if we read the SC right, he could say "I'm committing an obvious crime against all the values we hold, because I'm a dangerous lunatic, and that's official," and if his toadies in the Senate decide it's OK, then it's OK.
 
bruto said:
Hard to keep up with developments here, and I mentioned this in the "fascism" thread elsewhere. Of course the idea of throwing Smith out is insanely preposterous and as unamerican as pissing on the flag and then some, but Trump's argument in this case is the simple one that he has been granted absolute immunity by the Supremos, so I suppose if he just says "I'm throwing Jack Smith out of the country officially," he can do it. In fact, if we read the SC right, he could say "I'm committing an obvious crime against all the values we hold, because I'm a dangerous lunatic, and that's official," and if his toadies in the Senate decide it's OK, then it's OK.
Click to expand...
I warned of this some time ago. The SCOTUS Permanent Free Criming Pass means Trump can simply ignore EVERY law, including the constitution, by saying his actions are "official presidential business". So anyone who thought any legal guardrails apply is in for a rude shock.
 
Businessman and "Shark Tank" star Kevin O'Leary confirmed that President-elect Donald Trump is hosting discussions at Mar-a-Lago about integrating Canada into the United States.

O'Leary told Fox News he participated in the discussions at Mar-a-Lago after Trump suggested on Truth Social that Canada would become the "51st state."

 
Norman Alexander said:
I warned of this some time ago. The SCOTUS Permanent Free Criming Pass means Trump can simply ignore EVERY law, including the constitution, by saying his actions are "official presidential business". So anyone who thought any legal guardrails apply is in for a rude shock.
Click to expand...
This is true. The SCOTUS not only said that anything done as 'official business', Trump is immune from criminal charges, but that gathering evidence to support the notion that an act isn't official business is not allowed.
IE "as long as it's official business, the president is immune. No one is allowed to investigate if the act is official or not."
 
Andy_Ross said:
Businessman and "Shark Tank" star Kevin O'Leary confirmed that President-elect Donald Trump is hosting discussions at Mar-a-Lago about integrating Canada into the United States.

O'Leary told Fox News he participated in the discussions at Mar-a-Lago after Trump suggested on Truth Social that Canada would become the "51st state."

Click to expand...
Ridiculous. Everyone knows that the United States didn't start annexing Canada until 2072.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Businessman and "Shark Tank" star Kevin O'Leary confirmed that President-elect Donald Trump is hosting discussions at Mar-a-Lago about integrating Canada into the United States.

O'Leary told Fox News he participated in the discussions at Mar-a-Lago after Trump suggested on Truth Social that Canada would become the "51st state."

Click to expand...
O'Leary is a Jordan Peterson-level embarrassment to Canada. Trump is right...we're not exactly sending our best over the border.
 
I would vote for my State to be annexed to Canada before I would support some kind of military invasion of Canada.
 
I never had a problem with the confirmation. The damage (the Election) has already been done. (and we have a looong way to go.) I'm sure there were a few small group protests but nothing like four years ago. That's a date that lives in infamy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom