Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning added to OP 10/1/26

15075085105125131580

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 889 ✭✭✭maik3n


    Oh, I know Trump has/had nothing to do with any of it.
    However, that hasn't stopped him playing politics with it the last few months.
    I was fully sure that he would probably have a big show at the WH, shouting about how he/LordElon saved them after Biden/Kamala abandoned them.

    Coming back to Trump/Russia, is it perhaps high time that we play the Chamberlain card?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,620 ✭✭✭plodder


    I wouldn't be surprised at Trump wanting to do that. But, the smarter people around him are likely to advise against it (to say the least). I think it's unlikely that all the commissioned officers and generals would just form an orderly line to sign it, for example ..

    I see Trump getting push back from the courts yesterday, in a rare rebuke.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8j0vwpkwkxo

    “The opposite of 'good' is 'good intentions'”



  • Site Banned Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    Anyone who objects or stands up to Trump gets mowed over

    Your argument is just a variation of “checks and balances” which have shown to be a load of bull crap



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 673 ✭✭✭DrPsychia


    The Democrats need to jump on this. Rub it deep in Trumps face, plaster it everywhere. Force him to say something reactionary to undermine Chief Justice Roberts. Turn the SC against him. The dream would be to revisit of the absolute immunity ruling in Trump v. United States (2024). Justice Amy Coney Barrett might flip.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,252 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    It would be absolutely spiffing if the Democrats actually did “something” - it would certainly be a start.



  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭thatsdaft


    They seem to be deliberately stepping back and letting Trump burn everything down to the ground

    ”checks and balances” /s



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,048 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Unfortunately it's become the playbook of the older Dems with the most power in the party to just sit back, complain about all the awful things the GOP are doing, fire out campaign emails asking for donations so they can undo all those things next time they get into power, and then not even undo half those things.

    Pelosi, Schumer et al have absolutely turned the Dems into a limp dick party; more comfortable on the sidelines tutting and doing performative silent protestations, but never actually doing anything to affect change. They're waving the rulebook in front of people who are just writing their own.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,168 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Trump is never named in the GOP/SCOTUS criticisms.

    It allows them to pay lip service to the issue, and allows Trump to say they weren't talking about him.

    It's been happening for ages.

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,934 ✭✭✭✭walshb




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,980 ✭✭✭yagan


    Aside from the constitutional checks and balances influencing which way the military would go it's worth noting that during his first term he pretty much had a naval mutiny over a Covid outbreak.

    If I remember rightly before the US civil war when a basic income tax was introduced the apparatus of the federal government and all its branches were paid for by duties on imports. As a resource rich continent it effectively had a trade surplus with every nation it traded with so it may have felt like to average denizen of those early decades that taxes didn't exist as only the importers were funding the federal government.

    Edit to add an aside, in the early years attempts to issue a national currency failed as a lot of domestic trade was barter and import duties could be paid with circulating british and other european coin which merchants had a surplus of from their exports. It took decades for a USD to gain common usage domestically. The building up of a national reserve helped to eventually replace foreign coins with US silver coins.

    It seems like the modern Tea Party mistook that ending tax to a faraway king meant the end of taxation entirely. They look at federal government being as much an imposition as tithes to a 18th century English monarch. In the early years of the new republic it may have felt like tax didn't exist as there wasn't a sales or income tax, but that non taxation nirvana was shielded by a navy and army paid for by import taxes and duties.

    Trumpers are united in not believing in government, they think taxation is theft and DOGE is the purge. The army, navy and airforce could not exist without taxation so ultimately they'd have no choice but to protect the federal government against insurrectionists.

    If Trump dropped dead tomorrow there'd still be an anti government radicalism that may become more assertive domestically.

    Post edited by yagan on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,092 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Thing is; he had "asked" for the total loyalty from one FBI director, James Comey, in his last spell as president and that he didn't get it from Comey.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,694 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Has the president not immunity as per the supreme court



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,121 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I'd love to know what Vlad has on him. It must be really, really, juicy*.

    *as in disgusting, depraved, shocking and vile.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,121 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    And their supporters get upset when MAGA is called weird.

    :/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,620 ✭✭✭plodder


    I see. So, the checks and balances are all just bull crap. When can we expect the new oaths for the military and other Führerbefehl then?

    I really think people have a problem accepting legitimate decisions of the supreme court that they don’t like, and they conflate these with Trump’s trolling sh!t talk, which falls apart the minute it touches reality. Look at his peace "deal" with Putin for example. There hasn’t been a proper confrontation with the Supreme Court yet. I don’t believe there will be one, because he will lose if there is.

    “The opposite of 'good' is 'good intentions'”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,694 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Says the poster who decried judges as activists as they had the gall to strike down orders from Trum that are more than likely not legal



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy, he’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 12,013 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    US State Department delete data on stolen Ukrainian children

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-ukraine-children-russia-war-kidnapping-evidence-b2717730.html



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,745 ✭✭✭randd1




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 5,974 ✭✭✭Widdensushi


    Afraid to mention his name, martial law over there isn't far away,he will lock up anyone who is critical.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 673 ✭✭✭DrPsychia


    People might start falling out of windows, or suicide while in prison🤐



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,095 ✭✭✭Field east


    Does the constitution not usurp the Supreme Court? . The Supreme Court only tries to interpret it. Another Supreme Court could interpret it differently - ESPECIALLY if it operates without ‘ fear or favour’



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,095 ✭✭✭Field east


    Imagine the kind of S###t that Trump/ his team bring up when discussing serious matters- especially at this point in time re wars, etc. EG Trump and Putin discussing anout both countries playing an ice hockey match ; commenting on VZ rigout.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,048 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    They're unlikely to overturn their own ruling after only a few years, and especially considering their ruling was made under a Biden administration.

    And chances are, some of the current justices might decide a timely retirement just before Trump's term ends and allow Trump/GOP to ensure the SC is still stacked on the conservative side for years to come.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,543 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    There is an interesting parallel here to the 1930s, in arguably the most defining power struggle between President and Court that the US has ever had. It completely changed the structure, operation and character of the country, more so, I would say, than the Civil War (which, to a sidetrack to a different discussion, was the last time that the military oaths were significantly changed: From the allegiance to the states and instead to the Constitution).

    After repeatedly losing at SCOTUS under the Hughes court, Roosevelt basically told them "Give me the ruling I want, or I'll pack the court and get the ruling I want." SCOTUS provided West Coast Hotel, and suddenly the Federal Government became a significant controlling point for domestic policy, not only a source of inter-state co-ordination and foreign policy.

    There are two items I think worth observing here.

    1. Despite the fact that the President basically bullied the court into getting what he wanted, it's not really a particularly remarked-upon event when discussing the current environment. There is precedent to current fears, and it was done by one of the more well-regarded Democrats in modern history. Further, the country has been doing OK for the ninety years since. I think threatening the court was wrong then, and it would be wrong now, but I'm not sure I'm in a majority opinion in holding such a consistency.
    2. The court in 1935 caved early. Popular though FDR was, his actions against the court were not. It turned out that there was great opposition to his court-packing plan and it probably would not have passed. I'm not convinced, relatively spineless though both some Republican and Democrat politicians have proven of late, that Trump would actually have the votes to dismantle the court.

    (Besides, if, as people are advocating, Trump is immune to court actions because nobody will enforce the court orders against him, why would he need to dismantle the court?)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,252 ✭✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    Trump has mentioned his call with Putin lasted “nearly two hours” - they spoke about Ukraine “and other things”

    I can’t help but think Ukraine didn’t get much agenda time as I’d say the “other things” are much more pressing for Trump - he’s obviously cooking up something



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,694 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    You would hope so and the supreme court left it a bit ambitious when they ruled. I say if there was some challenge we will find they will become a lot more detailed. Maybe Trump will utter the infamous words by Jackson after they ruled on native Americans been ruled "they have issued the rulling now let them enforce it"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 142 ✭✭Canaibh


    Mod: Warned for commenting on moderation on thread

    Post edited by Leg End Reject on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 142 ✭✭Canaibh


    Have you looked into that judge's background? I have.



Advertisement
Advertisement