Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 11K
  • Views: 323K
  • Politics 
Get rid of all coloreds lol

[MOD NOTE - @OGtruthhurts I am not sure of your intent with this remark but this sort of racial slur crosses an important line notwithstanding our attempt to provide folks room for strong language and aggressive opinionating.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lawtig02 said:
Let's start with Heritage's own definition --

"Conservatism is an ideology rooted in American founding principles. It prioritizes individual choice and rights over big government, one-size-fits-all solutions and viewpoints."

www.heritage.org

Conservatism | The Heritage Foundation

Since our founding in 1973, The Heritage Foundation has been working to advance the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org

In other words, anti-MAGA.
Click to expand...
You're correct. MAGA, and the current Republican Party, isn't conservative. The best description for it would be populist authoritarian fascist. The only real conservatives left in the US were long ago labelled RINO and exiled from the party.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I was kind of surprised he pardoned them. Vance made similar statements. I would have thought all of Trump's nominee's and his VP would have been on the same page with him. Maybe it was a trial balloon. Vance got booed when he said Trump likely wouldn't pardon anyone who attacked a police officer.
Click to expand...
I don't think it would have mattered if they both would have known and advised against it. trump was going to do what he wanted because not pardoning all is an admission that there was some culpability.
 
nycfan said:


The United States is not a predator. JFC.
Click to expand...

Funny how Pubs are always screeching about America's sovereignty in various contexts but then are like "Let's take Greenland" or "We should annex Canada." They have zero respect for the sovereignty of other nations. Situational ethics and morality as always with the GQP.
 
lawtig02 said:
Whatever form it takes, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the next four years will see a MASSIVE expansion of executive power at the expense of the legislature, the courts and the states. I still can’t figure out how so many people who think of themselves as small government advocates have been deluded into supporting this movement. I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say that Democrats are more conservative than 2025’s version of MAGA.
Click to expand...
You go from 3 branches of government down to 1 - that’s smaller.

It’s simple math.

😁




Never mind. I see that Altmin beat me to it
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
[edited - thx]
Click to expand...
Super, the snipers/assassins line may be intended as humor (I honestly cannot tell) but crosses into (apparent) violent rhetoric we really don’t want to host. Would appreciate if you would edit the remark.
 
Last edited:
mpaer said:
Huh?
It was an attempt to get some slowdown and a Big Increase in judges looking at legit entrys
Click to expand...
He could have done that with an executive order. Getting some slowdown didn't require passage of the bill. Unilaterally he could have shut the border down. Agree?
 
nycfan said:
Super, the snipers/assassins line may be intended as humor (I honestly cannot tell) but crosses into (apparent) violent rhetoric we really don’t want to host. Would appreciate if you would edit the remark.
Click to expand...
I would have thought an avid Simpsons fan would have appreciated the reference (though admittedly I added the assassins part). But I will edit.
 
Callatoroy said:
I don't think it would have mattered if they both would have known and advised against it. trump was going to do what he wanted because not pardoning all is an admission that there was some culpability.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. Even Trump made comments a few weeks back that there may be exceptions for radicals and crazies.

I suspect that a few of those guys will go down like the pizza guy or worse and it will hurt Trump.
 
superrific said:
I would have thought an avid Simpsons fan would have appreciated the reference (though admittedly I added the assassins part). But I will edit.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I did not register a Simpsons quote but figured I was missing something.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
From Wiki…

Ogles graduated from Franklin High School and later attended Western Kentucky University and Columbia State Community Collegefrom 1990 to 1993, studying allied language arts and English.

Ogles later studied at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), where he failed every course taken in the fall of 1995 and the fall of 1998; he returned to the university in 2007 and graduated with a 2.4 grade point average, with a Bachelor of Science in liberal studies.
Click to expand...
Just a complete dumb ass for making a comment like that. I was hoping comments like that were limited to green and lb.
 
Callatoroy said:
He could have done that with an executive order. Getting some slowdown didn't require passage of the bill. Unilaterally he could have shut the border down. Agree?
Click to expand...
We've been through this before on this board. The answer is no. It is not an opinion. There are statutes and regulations and international law that requires the border to be open. The president cannot just repeal that.

Also, learn what an executive order is. My son studied them in high school government class. He understands them. Why don't you?
 
rodoheel said:
Classic Republican policy proposal - do something mean and cruel and deceptively simple that would require a massive administrative effort just to begin to administer. Sort of like idiotic "drug test people on welfare" proposals but way more work and also blatantly unconstitutional just for fun.
Click to expand...
A possibly intended side effect is that in the future, only people with means will be able to prove their citizenship. People whose parents have passports might have an easily obtainable record of their parents passports as their parents would have done the leg work (possibly just producing one of their own parents' passports) to prove their own citizenship.

But a person in poverty won't have parents with passports. They might actually have to produce that chain of passports going back generations and that might be impossible / expensive.

Also, look for fraud in this space. One sister who is a citizen might claim the baby is hers. Or a person claims a different daddy. Oh, and are they going to require genetic testing of the dads when the mom isn't a citizen?

Such a mess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top