Society The Donald J. Trump Show - 4 more years editions

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

SuperPig

Enjoy yourselves
Aug 7, 2015
30,979
51,737
I'm no fan of Trump but I'll commend him when he acts presidential and does things that I agree with and disagree when he doesn't.

He didn't say anything terrible here. Not the best choice of words but the bigger issue was that he didn't finish the sentence. If he had said " I didn't know that she was nasty -in statements about me." then it would have been so much harder for people to nitpick this one.

But he didn't. So here we are.
 

Never_Rolled

First 10,000
Dec 17, 2018
5,798
6,349
I'm no fan of Trump but I'll commend him when he acts presidential and does things that I agree with and disagree when he doesn't.

He didn't say anything terrible here. Not the best choice of words but the bigger issue was that he didn't finish the sentence. If he had said " I didn't know that she was nasty -in statements about me." then it would have been so much harder for people to nitpick this one.

But he didn't. So here we are.
As a fan of Trump I will be the first to admit he says things I don’t like and or agree with. He says dumb things to pounce on. You don’t have to take things out of context and twist them into something else. That says more about the person making that argument that they aren’t to be taken seriously.
 

Thuglife13

✝👦🍕🍦🍩
Dec 15, 2018
20,385
27,213
Friendly reminder that Meghan Markle is indeed nasty and is a disgrace to the royal family...

 

Rambo John J

Eats things that would make a Billy Goat Puke
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
71,542
71,466
this made me laugh
same goes for the dems(obama lovers) but the concept is great
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
Is the wall actually on the way?

Judge rejects House Democrats' attempt to block border wall - CNNPolitics
A federal judge in Washington on Monday denied a request by House Democrats to block President Donald Trump from transferring funds from appropriated accounts to construct his wall, a setback for Democrats seeking to use the judicial system to fight the White House.
Judge Trevor McFadden said the House lacks standing to bring the challenge and also he does not believe the court should step into the fight between the President and Congress.

"The Court declines to take sides in this fight between the House and the President," McFadden wrote.

"This case presents a close question about the appropriate role of the Judiciary in resolving disputes between the other two branches of the Federal Government. To be clear, the court does not imply that Congress may never sue the Executive to protect its powers," he added.

It's one of the first times in the numerous court battles between the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Trump's administration that a federal judge has sided with the administration over lawmakers.

Several House committees received favorable rulings last month from federal judges as they subpoena financial records from Trump's accounting firm and from Deutsche Bank and Capital One as part of Democratic-led investigations.

McFadden's decision to effectively kill the House effort to stop the border wall comes as the White House and its critics clash over immigration policy on the US-Mexico border. A judge in California overseeing a separate federal case paused some funding that was set to go toward the wall last month. Border communities and The Sierra Club will continue to challenge the constitutionality of Trump's funding of the wall in that lawsuit.

At the same time, public attention has turned to crowded conditions in border detention centers while Trump has called for tougher restrictions.
The ruling will likely not impact the other lawsuits by House Democrats or states against the Trump administration or various legal efforts to block border wall construction. It was based specifically on the idea of standing -- simply whether the House could show injury and could sue.
Lawmakers, McFadden wrote, have more options than the court system to fight the President's proposals.

"Congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its sphere of power," he wrote. "These tools show that this lawsuit is not a last resort for the House. And this fact is also exemplified by the many other cases across the country challenging the administration's planned construction of the border wall."

McFadden, a Trump appointee, held a nearly three-hour hearing on the matter last month.

He also said the ruling doesn't mean Democrats need to shy away from challenging the White House in court.

"This case presents a close question about the appropriate role of the Judiciary in resolving disputes between the other two branches of the Federal Government. To be clear, the court does not imply that Congress may never sue the Executive to protect its powers," he wrote.
Earlier this year, the Democratic-led House joined several organizations in filing a lawsuit against the President's national emergency declaration.

The lawsuit argues Trump's choice to move funds for the wall violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress power over the designation of federal spending. It asks McFadden to block spending of money transferred for the wall in addition to future transfers.

The suit received notable support from former members of Congress and former House general counsels from both sides of the aisle.
A bipartisan group of more than 100 former House members signed an amicus brief that stated, "Rarely in our Nation's history has the Executive Branch launched such an assault on Congress's exclusive legislative powers."

"Without action by this Court to prevent the Administration's usurpation of congressional authority, the unchecked expansion of the Executive's power at the expense of the Legislative Branch will threaten our democracy," the brief said.

The Department of Justice praised the decision.

"The Court rightly ruled that the House of Representatives cannot ask the judiciary to take its side in political disputes and cannot use federal courts to accomplish through litigation what it cannot achieve using the tools the Constitution gives to Congress," a department spokesperson said in a statement. "The Department looks forward to continuing to defend the Administration's lawful actions to address the crisis at the southern border."
 

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
Trump’s Tariffs Could Nullify Tax Cut, Clouding Economic Picture

The fact it looks like the Fed is contemplating having to cut already low interest rates just to keep an economy that's already on steroids ticking along is pretty amazing. Trump was always going to fist your economy long-term but even short-term you stupid cunts aren't getting anything out of him.

The next financial crisis was always going be a game changer with or without Trump, but he's going to make it that much more awesome.