Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 619K
  • Politics 
HandsonFire said:
Prove luxury accommodations. All we have is the word of Elon and that’s worth less than the dog shit on your carpet.
Click to expand...
What if it isn't luxury? What if it is the shittiest hotels in New York? The fact is, we are spending billions of taxpayer dollars housing, feeding, providing medical care on people who were allowed to simply, and illegally, walk right on in all the while we can't even afford to take care of the problems we currently have as a nation.

Mayor Adams said illegal immigration would destroy New York. Wonder why he would say that? You think it might have had something to do with the expense? He also likely got an investigation opened against him for saying it by an administration who was more than willing to commit lawfare whenever they deemed it necessary to shut down any opposition to their agenda.
 
rodoheel said:
I think this thread is a good illustration of the conservative mindset at work, especially as it applies to things like "the rule of law" or "the constitution." To conservatives, the law has two purposes: to protect their rights and to punish their enemies/opponents. When it is doing anything other than that, the law is an inconvenience to be ignored and dispensed with. That is why conservatives will on the one hand suddenly become constitutional "originalists" when it comes to things like civil rights and gay marriage and abortion - and happily seek redress from "unelected federal judges" to prevent those rights from being extended or protected - and then turn around and decry the very idea that a judge could rule that anything their own party wants to do is unconstitutional. This seemingly obvious cognitive dissonance is not really dissonance when you remember that in the conservative mind, law that protects conservatives and restrains liberals is inherently just, while law that protects liberals and constrains conservatives is inherently unjust. This same mindset is why conservatives who claim to care about "fraud" want to investigate welfare fraud and money going to NGOs, but have no interest in PPP fraud and complain about hiring IRS auditors to investigate tax fraud. It seems nonsensical, but it makes perfect sense when you remember who conservatives think the law should protect and who it should punish.

So you can see in this thread, from PandemicBlue and callatoroy and others, that they really could not care less about whether the Trump admin and their unelected Musk-backed hacker army run roughshod over any and all legal principles that are fundamental to our system of government and/or protect against the very fraud and corruption they claim to oppose, as long as they agree (or think they agree - in reality they probably don't understand very well) with what Trump and Musk are trying to do. Any law, constitution, or "unelected federal judge" who stands in the way is just another obstacle to be bulldozed. So don't ever expect them to stand up and say that there is some legal line they don't think Trump can or should cross - because there isn't one they really care about, unless it affects them personally. So that's why their response to this thread, rather than responding to the subject matter, is simply to whine about the same stuff they always whine about Biden crime family, benefits to illegal immigrants, open border, yada yada yada. If the Trump admin announced the suspension of civil liberties to, like, fight Mexican gangs tomorrow, they'd simply cheer.
Click to expand...

More succinctly, Wilhoit's law: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
 
PandemicBlue said:
What if it isn't luxury? What if it is the shittiest hotels in New York? The fact is, we are spending billions of taxpayer dollars housing, feeding, providing medical care on people who were allowed to simply, and illegally, walk right on in all the while we can't even afford to take care of the problems we currently have as a nation.
Click to expand...
1. We can afford to take care of all of our problems. We can't afford to when you idiots cut taxes so that our outlays are much bigger than the tax receipts. AND we can still borrow cheaply. The problems that exist are there by choice, and the majority of the ones you're describing have been created by the GOP.

2. How many times must it be explained to you that none of the people in NY hotels are in the country illegally? They are there because an Act of Congress provides that they can be. The executive cannot lawfully rewrite statutes of Congress. I know that frustrates you, but it's our system. You and your MAGA ilk are shitting on every single person who ever donned a uniform to fight for our country and its freedoms.

3. Again, the reason their upkeep costs so much is your team. YOU did that. We didn't do it.
 
superrific said:
Something like 12-15 million people emigrated to the US between 1870-1880. In gross numbers, that's a hjgher run rate than Biden's term; as a % of the population, it's way higher.

You said "in our history." That's skipping the part where you seem to attribute that to Biden, when he mostly had nothing to do with it. This has been explained many times and I'm not going to rehash it again. Long story short: the courts enjoined the policies that Trump criticized Biden for ending. Biden followed the law, as he should. Congress should have changed the law if it wanted different results. Sigh.
Click to expand...
On a thread about Trump violating our nation’s laws, MAGAs are bosiding with tales of Biden obeying the law.
Ahhhh…good strategy.
 
nycfan said:
We have discussions of this spread across multiple threads but wanted to to create a central hub to discuss attacks on judges and more importantly the lies to federal judges by DOJ lawyers and move by Trump, Musk, Vance and the Administration toward open defiance of court orders …
Click to expand...
NYC, I am shocked.
 
breepf said:
Who arrests him? From what I've gathered, the US Marshals enforce the rulings of federal judges. But that service also falls under the purview of the DOJ and Bondi.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about this, but I think the Marshals are supervised/managed by the DOJ, but answer to the judiciary on questions like these. Like, if the judge orders the Marshals to arrest someone, the Marshals have to comply regardless of whether the DOJ approves. That said, personnel is policy. If the only Marshals are Trump loyalists, they might disregard the court order illegally.
 
superrific said:
Something like 12-15 million people emigrated to the US between 1870-1880. In gross numbers, that's a hjgher run rate than Biden's term; as a % of the population, it's way higher.

You said "in our history." That's skipping the part where you seem to attribute that to Biden, when he mostly had nothing to do with it. This has been explained many times and I'm not going to rehash it again. Long story short: the courts enjoined the policies that Trump criticized Biden for ending. Biden followed the law, as he should. Congress should have changed the law if it wanted different results. Sigh.
Click to expand...
Biden sent out the message to the world and the world listened and then he came into office and cancelled every Trump policy that had effectively minimized illegal immigration and as a result, created the four-year period with the greatest number of border crossings in our nation's history. Those are simply facts.

Nobody does that unless that is what they wanted. Nobody would watch the mass migration play out for over four years without doing something other than saying Congress needs to address immigration unless that is what they wanted. Nobody would send their Secretary of Homeland Security out to tell the American people the border was secure at the very same time millions of people were crossing and drugs were pouring in unless that is what they wanted. And once Joe saw how America felt about illegal immigration, he acted like he was going to try and address the problem but everybody knows what that was about. It didn't work.

Donald Trump will show you the difference between a president who wants to eliminate illegal immigration and one who wanted to maximize it.
 
rodoheel said:
I think this thread is a good illustration of the conservative mindset at work, especially as it applies to things like "the rule of law" or "the constitution." To conservatives, the law has two purposes: to protect their rights and to punish their enemies/opponents. When it is doing anything other than that, the law is an inconvenience to be ignored and dispensed with. That is why conservatives will on the one hand suddenly become constitutional "originalists" when it comes to things like civil rights and gay marriage and abortion - and happily seek redress from "unelected federal judges" to prevent those rights from being extended or protected - and then turn around and decry the very idea that a judge could rule that anything their own party wants to do is unconstitutional. This seemingly obvious cognitive dissonance is not really dissonance when you remember that in the conservative mind, law that protects conservatives and restrains liberals is inherently just, while law that protects liberals and constrains conservatives is inherently unjust. This same mindset is why conservatives who claim to care about "fraud" want to investigate welfare fraud and money going to NGOs, but have no interest in PPP fraud and complain about hiring IRS auditors to investigate tax fraud. It seems nonsensical, but it makes perfect sense when you remember who conservatives think the law should protect and who it should punish.

So you can see in this thread, from PandemicBlue and callatoroy and others, that they really could not care less about whether the Trump admin and their unelected Musk-backed hacker army run roughshod over any and all legal principles that are fundamental to our system of government and/or protect against the very fraud and corruption they claim to oppose, as long as they agree (or think they agree - in reality they probably don't understand very well) with what Trump and Musk are trying to do. Any law, constitution, or "unelected federal judge" who stands in the way is just another obstacle to be bulldozed. So don't ever expect them to stand up and say that there is some legal line they don't think Trump can or should cross - because there isn't one they really care about, unless it affects them personally. So that's why their response to this thread, rather than responding to the subject matter, is simply to whine about the same stuff they always whine about - Biden crime family, benefits to illegal immigrants, open border, yada yada yada. If the Trump admin announced the suspension of civil liberties to, like, fight Mexican gangs tomorrow, they'd simply cheer.
Click to expand...
the only uniform truth of conservatism historically is the desire to conserve their power. everything else is fungible.
 
PandemicBlue said:
Biden sent out the message to the world and the world listened and then he came into office and cancelled every Trump policy that had effectively minimized illegal immigration and as a result, created the four-year period with the greatest number of border crossings in our nation's history. Those are simply facts.

Nobody does that unless that is what they wanted. Nobody would watch the mass migration play out for over four years without doing something other than saying Congress needs to address immigration unless that is what they wanted. Nobody would send their Secretary of Homeland Security out to tell the American people the border was secure at the very same time millions of people were crossing and drugs were pouring in unless that is what they wanted. And once Joe saw how America felt about illegal immigration, he acted like he was going to try and address the problem but everybody knows what that was about. It didn't work.

Donald Trump will show you the difference between a president who wants to eliminate illegal immigration and one who wanted to maximize it.
Click to expand...
Happy Cracking Up GIF by Regal
This shit is so good.

BIDEN!!!!!! BIDEN!!!!! BIDEN!!!!!! BIIIIIIDDDDEEEEEENNNNN!!!!
 
PandemicBlue said:
Biden sent out the message to the world and the world listened and then he came into office and cancelled every Trump policy that had effectively minimized illegal immigration and as a result, created the four-year period with the greatest number of border crossings in our nation's history. Those are simply facts.

Nobody does that unless that is what they wanted. Nobody would watch the mass migration play out for over four years without doing something other than saying Congress needs to address immigration unless that is what they wanted. Nobody would send their Secretary of Homeland Security out to tell the American people the border was secure at the very same time millions of people were crossing and drugs were pouring in unless that is what they wanted. And once Joe saw how America felt about illegal immigration, he acted like he was going to try and address the problem but everybody knows what that was about. It didn't work.

Donald Trump will show you the difference between a president who wants to eliminate illegal immigration and one who wanted to maximize it.
Click to expand...
I can't understand what you are saying with trump's balls in your mouth.

 
PandemicBlue said:
Wait a minute....your position is that we didn't have a record number of border crossings under Joe Biden's four years than we did during any other four year period in our history?
Click to expand...
Just going to try to save you from wasting any more of your time.

1. They have zero interest in discussing anything in good faith. They clearly know what you mean, but try to find some minute detail to refute your point and then say you are dumb, yada, yada, yada. Any reasonable person knows that the dims royally fucked up the border with joe's policies and rhetoric, and kamala's incompetence. That is a fact as supported by the overwhelming negative polling on border security and election results. So, Ford saying no and super trying to employ some technicality is just them acting in bad faith. At that point, all further attempts are wasted time because they can't defend the border and they can't objectively own any team responsibility. Not rational to think they could on any other topic either. Cut and do something more useful like paint something and then watch the paint dry. You will get about as much meaningful insight.

2. There is zero desire to engage in objective political discussion. Not only is it in bad faith, but arrogance, wokeness, limited intellectual curiosity, and TDS precludes any possible worthwhile discussion. You are on a political board dominated by, not just dims, but waaaaay out there dims. How many of these critical thinkers do you think participate in boards where they are in the minority? They don't have any intellectual curiosity and would rather spend all their time in a safe space where their views are echoed back and forth. There is a severe lack of seriousness in what is actually being discussed. You can't actively and intelligently engage with people who are woke. Liberals yes, there is something to be gained and learned. But woke liberals, lol might as well be talking to radicalized jihadists. Not much different in their ability to think objectively. Brainwashed is brainwashed.

But, if you disagree, keep chopping wood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top