Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump the Megathread part II - mod warnings in OP, Updated 06/06/25

1878879880881882884»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,288 ✭✭✭✭briany


    The judiciary has been a little slower to bend to Trump's will than he would have liked, but bending it is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,932 ✭✭✭eire4


    In terms of Sanders own elections he was in congress for 16 years so thats 8 elections and he has won 3 terms since he became a senator. Your contention about his failure to win a Democratic nomination for president is perfectly on point. I think what some (and I include myself) who like his policies overall point out is the corporate Democratic Party has not only never in any meaningful way embraced his policies they have actively worked against people in their own party and continue to do so as we speak if they are seen as being too Bernie like so to speak and well look where that has got the Democratic party and more importantly the US as a country. The point is at least IMHO is that the Democratic Party needs to embrace more of the Sanders agenda not fight against it to be successful and more importantly IMHO this would be a way forward that would be good for most Americans.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,456 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    Have you seen politicians, they are mostly bland and dour. Whoever the Dems had elected was going to be the worst person in the world regardless. Ron DeSantis was meant to be next President in waiting and Trump defeated him without evening turning up for the debates...

    Anyway it was on the Republican party to stop Trump running. Once he was running he was winning regardless who the Dems put up given the the huge financial and political advantages he had from wall to wall free advertising on tv news and from Musk and rest of social media and of course the disinformation campaign from Putin targeting Dems that hasn't gone away.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,288 ✭✭✭✭briany


    The Republican party generally didn't want Trump when he first showed up, either. They didn't get behind him until it became all too clear that he would be the nominee in 2016, and not even then was it unanimous. The story of that party has been, in a sense, the slow purge which has taken place over the last decade to where nary a one will criticise him.

    On the other hand, people are still making excuses for the likes of Sanders that the Democratic machine is against him. It is against him and politicians like him, but if the message is strong enough that shouldn't be a fatal impediment. You can, as Trump has shown, sidestep the machine.

    The system will not produce the antidote to the disease ….



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,078 ✭✭✭yagan


    I think it's more a social media phenomenon where a massive egotist was able to bypass the established political norms as a anti government president.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,965 ✭✭✭beggars_bush


    It helps when you have appointed a lot of them to their position



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,217 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    And another tantrum, Carney will love making a mockery of Trump with this.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 43,325 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    “We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period,”

    erm, can someone please remind me how tariffs work again



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 502 ✭✭✭sliabh 1956


    After the latest ruling by the Supreme Court it seems Trump has an open Goal to shoot at with whatever bits of law he wants to circumnavigate. No wonder he was all smiles and jokes at the press briefing. Scary times for non Nationals in America.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,400 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Trump keeps repeating the lie often enough to fool ignorant Americans. If you try to explain the reality to them they will throw a hissy fit about being lectured to ie pig headedness.

    But reality can only be postponed for so long.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,898 ✭✭✭✭fullstop


    He doesn’t have the balls to say it to any of their faces. Went running home from G7 and started tweeting about Macron from the safety of his toilet. Laying into Canada again now but didn’t say boo to Carney last week. He’s an absolute coward



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,356 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    His followers truly believe that tariffs are sanctions on the other lot.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,280 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,217 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Tells you a lot about his followers. And not just in America, also here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,134 ✭✭✭Dr Robert


    The dollar at the lowest level in four years against the euro.

    Winning 😂



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,288 ✭✭✭✭briany


    To be fair, it's difficult if not impossible to be cognizant of and angry about 30 different things at once. It's just further proof that the 'flood the zone' strategy is working as well now, if not better, than when it was implemented about a decade ago.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,877 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    It's not an important state but Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Lujan are two great senators. I really like Heinrich, he's very progressive and a great speaker. He'd thump Trump or any Republican.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,805 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    There does seem to be a point of diminishing returns for scandals.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 740 ✭✭✭maik3n


    Scotus further encouraging Americas descent into a Christian Theocracy.

    One might argue that their cause has merit when it comes to sex ed classes but with this, it is definitely verging into ''Dont Say Gay'' Laws territory.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,013 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    The matter has been coming to a head for some time. The idea of "judge shopping" for federal injunctions has been gaining traction for some time. For example, if there is a firearms restriction passed, you know it'll end up in Federal district court in San Diego (or whichever district Judge Benitez presides over, but i think it's SD) because he's well known for pro-gun rulings. Which i think is precisely counter to the gun example that Sotomayor was trying to make.

    Any ruling on a federal law normally only has effect within the jurisdiction of that court. If the fifth circuit decides the sky is green and the ninth circuit decides it is red, then within those jurisdictions as far as the law is concerned, the skies are green and red and in the Sixth Circuit, the skies are whatever color the legislature or common law has decided. Yet somehow folks are fine with national injunctions. If four district courts decide not to issue an injunction in their cases and a fifth one decides to impose a national injunction, then that fifth court from outside the jurisdiction has just overridden the other four within their own jurisdictions.

    This seems unsustainable.

    The individuals in areas where courts have not ruled till have the same options and opportunities as this indivuals in areas where the courts have ruled before they made their rulings.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,280 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    The lunatic on the TV today, quite apt the man emphasises insanity in his diatribes



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,542 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    But judge shopping was fine when it was a conservative judge in Texas in Biden's term though?

    It may be unsustainable due to the sheer numbers of XO's Trump is signing that potentially violate the constitution.
    Shouldn't the constitution be protected at all costs? If an XO potentially breaches the constitution, wouldn't the most rational option be, a federal judge issues an injunction until the supreme court rules on it? It's kinda like a presumption of innocence.

    Maybe, just maybe if he issued legal XO's there would be no reason for federal judges to take a case and issue an injunction. Ya know if you're all for law and order and checks and balance etc…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,258 ✭✭✭Damien360


    As I see it, that's not unlike the EU. Irish court ruling may be overruled by EU for whatever reason but we tend to drag our feet before changing. Same with courts across the EU. God help anyone in EU court trying to impose a law on France after they ruled. I would look at countries in EU as local court and EU court as federal in the context of US system. To be honest, most Irish people take little heed of EU court ruling until we have to.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,288 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Nothing sticks to Trump. There's always a new outrage to eclipse the old one. When everything is an outrage, nothing is an outrage because nothing particularly stands out.

    That list of around 30 things that was posted - you'll have a group of people who have one issue on that list where that's there prime concern, but that has balkanised public backlash. Nothing big enough to reach critical mass. Hopefully I'm proven wrong on this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,217 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Sorry, this is absolutely hilarious when she starts talking and he keeps going. This is gas.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,013 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    That's kindof the point. The issue of judge shopping for national injunctions has been a point of discussion for some time and has been increasing in prevalence in recent years. To quote Justice Kagan three years ago, "It can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process." (Why she has apparently changed her opinion of late I have not yet determined, I’ve not yet read the dissent). It hasn't just come up in the last six months since Trump has been in charge. Your last paragraph should give additional emphasis to this, unless you feel that the laws or regulations passed under the Biden administration were equally wrong to warrant a Texas judge issuing national injunctions. If they were legal, the injunction wouldn't have been issued, right? At least, by your logic.

    We can continue as we are, or we can finally put a stop to it. If they are not permitted, they cannot be abused.

    Post edited by Manic Moran at


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,962 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    especially when the subject is presumably never running for office again. Then it only really matters if it’s likely to trigger impeachment and given the currrnt state of play in congress, that would seem to be in the dead girl/live boy territory…



Advertisement