Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 634K
  • Politics 
Ramrouser said:
Yeah, what if SHE was also the richest person in the world and owned some of the most significant companies on the planet. Has that even happened before? So we don’t even really have a frame of reference.
Click to expand...
Lol, y'all burn Taylor Swift at the stake for merely expressing a political opinion differing from your own. She's one of the richest people in the world, self made, generous to a fault, and seemingly always kind and gracious.
 
Ramrouser said:
Yeah, what if SHE was also the richest person in the world and owned some of the most significant companies on the planet. Has that even happened before? So we don’t even really have a frame of reference.
Click to expand...
So that makes it OK, huh? Would you want you daughter to have Elon’s child? He can afford it, right? And that’s what matters.
 
wmheel1287 said:
Lol, y'all burn Taylor Swift at the stake for merely expressing a political opinion differing from your own. She's one of the richest people in the world, self made, generous to a fault, and seemingly always kind and gracious.
Click to expand...
I’m a fan, what are you talking about? Stereotype much.
 
I thought this was a worthwhile read on the reality of federal courts' contempt powers.

Here’s One Big Way You’ll Know if We’re in a Presidential Dictatorship

The media is full of speculation about what happens if the president simply ignores court orders. This question really has two parts. First, what can courts do to compel compliance with their orders? Second, what happens to the country if Trump remains recalcitrant and the courts’ enforcement powers prove ineffectual?
...
My own, entirely uncertain, assessment of the current state of play is that the Trumpists would rather not baldly declare a dictatorship but instead overwhelm the courts and the political system with daily assaults on law and custom coupled with persistent, contumacious, but never candidly avowed noncompliance with court orders. The objective of this approach, consistent with Trump’s lifelong approach to litigation, is to delay a conclusive showdown with the judiciary so long that, whatever the legal outcome, the destruction of the federal government and subjection of the executive branch to Trump’s whim will have proceeded too far to be undone.
...
The judges are surely aware of the fragility of their own authority in the face of outright defiance by a rogue executive, particularly in a moment when Congress has shown no disposition to defend constitutional separation of powers. For that reason, judges may be reluctant to deploy their contempt power assertively. But this is not the time for judicial timidity. With each passing day, America’s constitutional regime and the capacity of its government erodes further. And with each passing day, the practical ability of the courts to stop, or even materially hinder, the catastrophe diminishes. If there is to be a test of wills between law and Trumpism, it must come now, or it will be too late.
 




Vance goes to Europe and rumors on European leaders and governments, Rubio goes to Israel and fully embraces Bibi:



“… we have a common strategy … including when the gates of hell will be opened, as surely they will if all our hostages are not released …”

I guess some cover for Trump’s imprudent noon Saturday deadline …
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top