Donald Trump the Megathread part II - mod warnings in OP, Updated 18/03/25

everlast75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497249#Comment_123497249

Wouldn't bother me, but my point was MAGA having issue with that and not "Judge" Pirro..

blackcard

Does this court ruling apply to tariffs that are already in place? Where importers have paid the tariffs and passed these on to their customers? Will importers be claiming back monies paid as tariffs? Will customers be claiming back increased costs?. Will tariffs be in place whilst the decision is being appealed? What a tangled web we weave

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497276#Comment_123497276

Courts rule on points of law, but they require others to actually enforce it all. The current head of the US justice department is Pam Bondi, an uber Trump loyalist. If Trump were to contravene court rulings, I don't think any punishment would be coming from her end or from the FBI, since Kash Patel is in charge there. Kash wrote a children's book a few years ago about how everybody is out to get Trump. Trump also sacked a number of Federal Marshals at the start of his current tenure, which makes it clear that he (or someone in his administration) understands the point of unenforced laws being essentially worthless.

In this case, maybe it would come down to state-level police or the citizens themselves if Trump decided to openly flout court rulings.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497343#Comment_123497343

I strikes me that enforcing tariffs may be unpopular and moreso if they are being enforced illegally

Is this the hill that the Maga GOP wants to die on.?

Might they just be happier whipping up anti judge sentiment and gaining extra power for El Duck rather than actually following this tiresome road to the end?

It hasn't really shown good results so far .Might they take this as an off ramp and look for other areas of public life to infest?

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497430#Comment_123497430

I'm not sure if Trump has ever had a majority of popular support for anything he does or wants to do, but it doesn't matter if you have enough people who are loyal to you and yet more who are just apathetic enough to let it all happen.

I don't think Trump is going to let go of tariffs too easy. It's something he has talked about long before he ever became president.

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497092#Comment_123497092

She's still an absolute gowl.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497451#Comment_123497451

Faisal Islam seems to see Trump's tariff policy as being in a tight corner now.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2epx15pj2o

amandstu

The gowl with the gavil ?

She is a fine addition to Trump's cast of henchmen

everlast75

Leavitt: "The courts should have no role here. There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process. America cannot function if President Trump or any other president has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges."

More fascist nonsense.

We must be near completion of all steps at this stage?

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497783#Comment_123497783

Founding Fathers designed a 3 pronged system of government to ensure both oversight and limiting dictatorial minded individuals as President.

Just because the GOP congress has fallen in line for Trump doesn't mean the judiciary should do the same.

Of course the likes of Leavitt and Stephen Miller will talk out with sides or their mouths with respect to the constitution.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497040#Comment_123497040

Unlike supporters of dear leader and the authoritarian Republicans on here if information proves to be incorrect I have no problem in acknowledging that. However there is a major income inequality problem in the US and it is getting worse and likely to do so even more if the current authoritarian regime gets its big tax bill through. According to CNBC 63% of Americans cannot afford $500 for an emergency expense while according to US News 42% of Americans don't have an emergency fund at all and 40% could not cover an emergency expense of $1,000.

Survey: 42% of Americans Don't Have an Emergency Fund | Banking | U.S. News

CelticRambler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497856#Comment_123497856

… based on a survey of just over a thousand Americans - or 0.00000348% of the population. In other words: pure sh1te, as far as research goes.

Quoting this kind of nonsense undermines any serious discussion, and it's the kind of thing that feeds the MAGA mentality, because, when it suits their agenda, they can cite the "proof" that's been uncritically retweeted and reposted thousands of times; and when it doesn't, well, then they actually have a point.

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497853#Comment_123497853

They did a reasonably shîte job of it to be fair.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497783#Comment_123497783

It's plainly fascistic language. Leavitt's claims have absolutely no basis - her words serve not as a rebuttal to the judges, but as a rallying cry to MAGA. Put her in a room with someone who actually knows what they're talking about and she'd fold like a hinge in about two minutes.

'Unelected' is a commonly-used populist term to delegitimise various offices when they usurp a particular agenda. Firstly, many offices aren't directly elected - they're appointments made by an elected official. Secondly, as far as I can tell, these trade judges were appointed via a similar process to Supreme Court justices where a presidential nomination gets kicked down to Congress for confirmation.

Unlike Elon Musk and his DOGE goons, the judiciary has a very well-defined role in the American political system. Challenging their power is an open attempt to gain supremacy for the executive branch - a goal the Trump administration has been pussyfooting around since it got in.

blackcard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497783#Comment_123497783

This is entirely in keeping with the Trump philosophy. 'Never admit defeat' Blame someone else.

Similarly, with a report that has come from RFK's Department of Health regarding vaccines which is partly based on studies that were never carried out. When caught out on this, rather than admit it, she blamed it on 'formatting issues'.

Karoline has an incredible knack of spouting garbage continuously with her head nodding back and forth

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123498096#Comment_123498096

I am very sure, in the future, she will play the victim when the backlash lands at her front door.

Timistry

US appeals court temporarily reinstates Trump's tariffs

Country is all over the shop

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123498041#Comment_123498041

Are you saying the survey's results are wrong? The number of people surveyed is a pretty common number to survey. Nice job with the insults though that was solid maga mentality.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123498140#Comment_123498140

Pretending that Americans are far poorer and struggling far more than they really are is one of the key tenants of MAGA. I'm really struggling to understand why so many people are happy to jump on it.

I don't have an "emergency fund". I just have cash. It seems like a potentially poorly phrased survey. On top of which, as manic points out, they are frequently equating people using a credit card to cover an expense with them not being able to cover it with cash. I pay for absolutely everything with my credit card.

63% of Americans can not afford a 500$ expense is clearly a farcically inaccurate statement whatever absurd methodology they used to come up with it.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497451#Comment_123497451

I don't think Trump is going to let go of tariffs too easy. It's something he has talked about long before he ever became president.

To be fair, "tariff" is his favourite word!

Tony EH

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497783#Comment_123497783

The courts should have no role here

Just stop and think about that for a moment.

What she (and MAGA) is saying here is that there should be no rule of established law. Laws that have been in effect long before Trump became President. The only law that should matter is the law that Trump and his billionaire coup say matters.

Why is nobody taking these people to task over their words?

aloyisious

With the courts allowing the tariffs [under presidential authority] to stand until a final ruling [one way or the other] is made by SCOTUS on their legality, it seems possible that he could amend them or introduce new ones with a closer start time to get his way. The two appeal courts temporary rulings have allowed him keep that power until the issue is given a final judicial ruling on, presumably by SCOTUS.

If SCOTUS does take on the case AND does decide in his favour, they will open the door to the conclusion that he did not need to get the assent and agreement of Congress to introduce the tariffs and he will not need it in the future. IMO, such a SCOTUS decision would set aside any meaning to the notion that Trump's use of presidential power is controllable or liable to Constitutional control. They would be giving him the power to tell them [the SCOTUS bench] to feck off, that he can ignore them totally in the same breath as he can treat Congress itself, they being his lapdogs.

I think SCOTUS [due to its precedent Trump decisions] might take the easy route out, not to hear the case and to refer it back to the lower [appeals] courts, and they in turn do the same to the original judge in the first case as suitable for him to decide on after he read over their thoughts on Trump's appeal.

.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497783#Comment_123497783

She's also trying to set herself free from future legal consequence of her dumping **** all over the courts while she is NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL on the federal payroll, just a hired White House lickspittle. Hopefully when the end comes, she will not be allowed delete any part of her CV.

blackcard

There is an hilarious item on Youtube where Donold, Don jnr and Ivanka are being interviewed by Howard Stern who asks what is 17 times 6. Ivanka looks as if Stern has two heads and says that is not a practical application. She makes no attempt to answer the question as it clearly beyond her. She does say that they should use a calclator

Don jnr starts mumbling whilst playing for time. First, he says 96, then 92. Eventually, he answers 108.

Donold says the answer is 11 12, later says 112. Howard says this is the correct answer and Donold beams with pride. Don Jnr. says it is 6 times 20 minus 6 times 2 giving him an answer of 108

Eventually, one of the camera crew comes up with the correct answer, 102. The Trump kids were in their late teens/early twenties, I would guess.

Donold jnr, unprompted,said that he and Ivanka had got into the Wharton College on merit and that Donold hadn't to buy their way in - I think Donold went to Wharton College too

This mam is running the US

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123498331#Comment_123498331

I'm sure she's totally in favour of established law, so long as it's the kind which supports the agenda of Donald J Trump.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123498140#Comment_123498140

I agree the number surveyed should be sufficient, and is similar to the Bankrate survey linked to earlier today. I believe the number is typical and statistically significant. A good number of the answers agree between the two surveys, but there are sufficient differences to raise an eyebrow, such as US News saying "42% don't have a rainy day fund" whilst Bankrate gives the number at 27%. (Unless there's a difference in the definition between US News' "Emergency Fund" and Bankrate's "Emergency Savings"). The Bankrate survey does seem to show the actual questions asked with the charts of the various responses to the quoted questions. If the US News links to the actual questions, I can't find the link anywhere, which means that in the event of differences, I'd go with the Bankrate answer.

CelticRambler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123498140#Comment_123498140

Yeah, the sample size is pretty common, but that doesn't mean it has any meaningful value. Put it in context: 1200 people across 50 very disparate states = 24 people per state, not taking account of any weighting. Socio-economic studies typically divide the population into six classes. So that's 4 people per class per state.

Now pick four of your own peers, any four - can you say with 100% confidence that ye all share the same attitude to life, including all the short and long term choices you have made and will make that affect your financial status, or risk of upsetting it?

A miniscule sample size can work when the survey asks one question with little nuance; most of the time, though, this kind of survey is done to simply churn out results for the purposes of marketing, news or manipulating public opinion.

Widdensushi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123497035#Comment_123497035

It's giving him an easy out, surely his advisors can see it was a disaster and now they can back down whilst blaming others.

EmergencyExit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123495413#Comment_123495413

Yeap and the people questioning Biden obvious mental decline at the time where called all kinds of horrible rubbish like Trumpers or right wing conspiracy nuts. The media went out of it's way to hide it whilst Biden was hidden away from interviews or even taking questions. They have "blood on their hands" on this issue have no doubt about that.

Field east

TAcO issue. I wonder , when. A reporter asked Trump for his response to this TACO ‘slur’ was he actually aware of its very existance? I say this because:-

(1) if he really understood the acronym. He would have understood it as a very negative question and would have deemed it to be a very NASTY question , said so and told the reporter that you are fake news/ barred from future press conferences , etc, etc, etc.

(1) He did not ‘pick up ‘ the word ‘chicken’ in the question and he sought clarification and then proceeded to give a blow by blow account of the reducing Tarriff story with China - giving us the VERY REASON for the TAcO label being put on him .

I wonder do his advisors tell him everything?