Trump demands $230 million of our money

[Maximum Overkill 2,374]

8 hours ago, FrancieFootball said:

soybean

Soyboy

You'll never be a real Woman 

[MDC 7,808]

1 hour ago, Ron_Artest said:

Defending Alex Jones.  My how low you will go.

Seriously. It’s liberals’ fault Alex Jones lost a civil suit for claiming murdered kids and their parents were crisis actors. Even HT, maybe the biggest hack on the board, was like “Fock that guy.”

What an absolute focking ass clown RaiderHaters is.  

[Tree of Knowledge 2,089]

Current DOJ should seize all assets of HRC, BHO, and the rest of the conspirators to pay the bill.   

[Ron_Artest 2,126]

1 hour ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Current DOJ should seize all assets of HRC, BHO, and the rest of the conspirators to pay the bill.   

Still waiting on those treason charges against Obama.

[thegeneral 3,539]

I think all MAGAs should pay this…oh wait they already give Don all their extra cash.

[The Real timschochet 7,342]

24 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I think all MAGAs should pay this…oh wait they already give Don all their extra cash.

Once Trump is awarded the money he can put out a special coin to commemorate the occasion. 

[thegeneral 3,539]

15 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Once Trump is awarded the money he can put out a special coin to commemorate the occasion. 

Act quickly while supplies last!

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,515]

2 hours ago, MDC said:

Seriously. It’s liberals’ fault Alex Jones lost a civil suit for claiming murdered kids and their parents were crisis actors. Even HT, maybe the biggest hack on the board, was like “Fock that guy.”

What an absolute focking ass clown RaiderHaters is.  

Big difference between defending Alex jones and defending our constitution. But you would know that since you think illegals done get due process and love them giving democrats more political representation 

[jonnyutah 525]

As always this is the fault of democrats. If they wouldnt have gone after him like they did with all that nonsense, we wouldnt be in this spot.

Thanks a lot dems. 

[MDC 7,808]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Big difference between defending Alex jones and defending our constitution. But you would know that since you think illegals done get due process and love them giving democrats more political representation 

Da fuq does this even mean?  

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,515]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

Da fuq does this even mean?  

 

You don’t have a problem with democrats not following the constitution ie allowing illegals here. Because it allows them more congressional seats therefore more power then they would have 

[MDC 7,808]

4 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

You don’t have a problem with democrats not following the constitution ie allowing illegals here. Because it allows them more congressional seats therefore more power then they would have 

And this BS has what to do with you being such a focking ass clown that you’ll go to bat for a dirtbag grifter like Alex Jones?  

Metal helmet dumb. 🪖 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,515]

27 minutes ago, MDC said:

And this BS has what to do with you being such a focking ass clown that you’ll go to bat for a dirtbag grifter like Alex Jones?  

Metal helmet dumb. 🪖 

exactly I defend the constitution, you dont

again not going to bat for Jones, defending the constitution

 

[MDC 7,808]

3 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

exactly I defend the constitution, you dont

again not going to bat for Jones, defending the constitution

 

Wut da fuq does Alex Jones losing a civil case have to do with the constitution?  

Dear lord you are stupid. 🪖 

[Ron_Artest 2,126]

4 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

exactly I defend the constitution, you dont

 

How do you feel about Trump setting tariffs and not congress, Mr. Constitutional Scholar.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,515]

3 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

How do you feel about Trump setting tariffs and not congress, Mr. Constitutional Scholar.

same way I have always felt about tariffs, raise them all

biden didn't have an issue with them so I will just go with recency bias

Later acts, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, further evolved this delegated authority. These allowed the President to act on national security concerns through tariffs or respond to unfair foreign trade practices. However, this delegation is not unchecked. For instance, Section 232 of the 1962 Act enables the President to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security, but this is bounded by specific findings and processes.

[Ron_Artest 2,126]

Just now, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

same way I have always felt about tariffs, raise them all

biden didn't have an issue with them so I will just go with recency bias

OK so you are against the Constitution when it comes to tariffs.  Thanks for being consistent.

🪖 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,515]

2 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

OK so you are against the Constitution when it comes to tariffs.  Thanks for being consistent.

🪖 

I updated, the President can enact Tariffs anyways according to congressional acts

Historically, Congress set tariffs and maintained tight control over this power. However, over time, particularly after the Great Depression, there was a shift towards delegating some authority to the executive branch. This began with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, allowing the President to negotiate trade agreements without separate congressional approval each time.

Later acts, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, further evolved this delegated authority. These allowed the President to act on national security concerns through tariffs or respond to unfair foreign trade practices. However, this delegation is not unchecked. For instance, Section 232 of the 1962 Act enables the President to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security, but this is bounded by specific findings and processes.

so that is covered

[Ron_Artest 2,126]

2 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

I updated, the President can enact Tariffs anyways according to congressional acts

Historically, Congress set tariffs and maintained tight control over this power. However, over time, particularly after the Great Depression, there was a shift towards delegating some authority to the executive branch. This began with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, allowing the President to negotiate trade agreements without separate congressional approval each time.

Later acts, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, further evolved this delegated authority. These allowed the President to act on national security concerns through tariffs or respond to unfair foreign trade practices. However, this delegation is not unchecked. For instance, Section 232 of the 1962 Act enables the President to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security, but this is bounded by specific findings and processes.

so that is covered

We have no congressional acts.  There is no national security threat, no unfair trade practices.  Courts have ruled that his tariffs are unconstitutional.

So you don't defend the constitution.

[jerryskids 7,046]

I can't speak to the amount, but legally he should get reimbursed for the lawfare idiocy.  @dogcows, you should be pissed at your Dem comrades who did the lawfare, not Trump.

Also, who cooks a steak to put it on a salad?  I've put leftover steak on a salad, but never right when we cook it.   

[supermike80 2,063]

Well I think we need another no Kings protest day.   That'll fix it!

[seafoam1 3,383]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I can't speak to the amount, but legally he should get reimbursed for the lawfare idiocy.  @dogcows, you should be pissed at your Dem comrades who did the lawfare, not Trump.

Also, who cooks a steak to put it on a salad?  I've put leftover steak on a salad, but never right when we cook it.   

I do. Freaking delicious. 

Who cooks more steak than they are going to eat? Left over steak? Yuck. 

[jerryskids 7,046]

1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said:

We have no congressional acts.  There is no national security threat, no unfair trade practices.  Courts have ruled that his tariffs are unconstitutional.

So you don't defend the constitution.

I think Congress should control our tariff policy.

That being said, Congress has been increasingly delegating authority to the Executive branch for the past 100 years.  This includes both the president and his appointed agencies.  You just hate it now because you have TDS.

I'd say that perhaps some good to come out of the Trump presidency is for Congress to grow some balls and start doing its job.  But once a D gets back in office, you'll be happy as a clam letting some unknown person autopen the hell out of executive orders.   

[MDC 7,808]

10 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Also, who cooks a steak to put it on a salad?  

Who doesn’t? Just the other day, me and my girlfriend, with whom I enjoy sexual relations, grilled up some New York strip steaks and then cut them into pieces and put them on a delicious salad. Afterward she let me play with her breasts … they totally felt like bags of sand!  

[Ron_Artest 2,126]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I think Congress should control our tariff policy.

That being said, Congress has been increasingly delegating authority to the Executive branch for the past 100 years.  This includes both the president and his appointed agencies.  You just hate it now because you have TDS.

I'd say that perhaps some good to come out of the Trump presidency is for Congress to grow some balls and start doing its job.  But once a D gets back in office, you'll be happy as a clam letting some unknown person autopen the hell out of executive orders.   

I thought TDS was when you made up stuff about Trump.  We're talking about what he's actually done, and that is going against the constitution to enact extreme tariff policy that is hurting Americans.

Sounds like you can agree with me on this now which is good after your "art of the deal" BS that you theorized.

And yes congress should grow some balls and start doing its job.  That's one of the reasons 7M took to the streets last weekend.

No I do not want a democrat doing this either, but don't cry about it if it does.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,515]

1 hour ago, Ron_Artest said:

We have no congressional acts.  There is no national security threat, no unfair trade practices.  Courts have ruled that his tariffs are unconstitutional.

So you don't defend the constitution.

Actually lower courts ruled that. And if you dont think we have unfair tariffs that’s a you problem. Most people think that if a country puts higher tariffs on stuff coming in than going out that would be considered unfair 

[jerryskids 7,046]

5 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

I thought TDS was when you made up stuff about Trump.  We're talking about what he's actually done, and that is going against the constitution to enact extreme tariff policy that is hurting Americans.

Sounds like you can agree with me on this now which is good after your "art of the deal" BS that you theorized.

And yes congress should grow some balls and start doing its job.  That's one of the reasons 7M took to the streets last weekend.

No I do not want a democrat doing this either, but don't cry about it if it does.

RHR posted a summary of tariff acts which showed that the POTUS can impose tariffs for multiple scenarios including "unfair trade practices."  I presume that is at least part of what Trump is claiming as a legal defense.  The courts will decide if it is valid.

Hopefully I've been clear that I'm not a fan of tariffs unless, as you said, they are part of some "art of the deal" play, or are strategically punitive against China (although the devil is in the details).

On the last part, I was alluding to whoever in the Biden administration wielded the autopen while you supported a mentally incapacitated president.

[Ron_Artest 2,126]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

RHR posted a summary of tariff acts which showed that the POTUS can impose tariffs for multiple scenarios including "unfair trade practices."  I presume that is at least part of what Trump is claiming as a legal defense.  The courts will decide if it is valid.

Hopefully I've been clear that I'm not a fan of tariffs unless, as you said, they are part of some "art of the deal" play, or are strategically punitive against China (although the devil is in the details).

On the last part, I was alluding to whoever in the Biden administration wielded the autopen while you supported a mentally incapacitated president.

The courts so far have ruled unconstitutional on the tariffs.  We will see if the SCOTUS that he paid off will decide in his favor as they have been, or if they actually have a spine.

The art of the deal line was because you previously stated  incorrectly it was all a negotiation and he would never go through with it.

As far as Biden goes, I was never a big fan of Bidens and I agreed he was too old to serve. However all presidents use autopen, don't start with this BS again, and Biden never did anything close to what we've seen from Trump as far as EO's go.  Trump has already signed more EOs in 9 months than Biden did in 4 years.

 

[jerryskids 7,046]

27 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

The courts so far have ruled unconstitutional on the tariffs.  We will see if the SCOTUS that he paid off will decide in his favor as they have been, or if they actually have a spine.

The art of the deal line was because you previously stated  incorrectly it was all a negotiation and he would never go through with it.

As far as Biden goes, I was never a big fan of Bidens and I agreed he was too old to serve. However all presidents use autopen, don't start with this BS again, and Biden never did anything close to what we've seen from Trump as far as EO's go.  Trump has already signed more EOs in 9 months than Biden did in 4 years.

 

I don't mind the autopen, I mind that it wasn't Biden using it.

SCOTUS "that he paid off."  Bless your heart!  Here is a fabulous look at the biases of the justices over time:

https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology

You'll note two key things:

1. Each of the 3 liberal justices is more biased than 4 of the conservative justices.  Sotomayor is a joke.

2. The trend for both liberal and conservative justices is moving more liberal, with the exception of Alito.

 

If you think our Supreme Court is bought off by Trump, I guess that explains why you would waste part of your Saturday at a "no kings!@$#" protest.   

ETA:  My mistake on #1, I've corrected it.

[edjr 6,865]

I never understood people saying "Taxpayers money"  No. It was stolen from us, not ours anymore. 

[Sean Mooney 2,045]

What will Trump have to do before the dyed-in-the-wool supporters turn on him?

 

At this point I'm pretty sure Trump could be balls deep in Raiders significant other and Raiders would be in the corner jacking off saying "Yeah, wear this Tim Pool hat while you drill her Mr. President."

[Fnord 2,483]

56 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

What will Trump have to do before the dyed-in-the-wool supporters turn on him?

I've been asking myself this for years. The question itself has become oxymoronic. 

[dogcows 1,048]

3 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I can't speak to the amount, but legally he should get reimbursed for the lawfare idiocy.  @dogcows, you should be pissed at your Dem comrades who did the lawfare, not Trump.

Also, who cooks a steak to put it on a salad?  I've put leftover steak on a salad, but never right when we cook it.   

I am only pissed that the Supreme Court threw out the perfectly valid case claiming that he is immune to the law. Criminals should be held accountable, period.

Trump should be in the big house, not the ruins of the White House.

Either way, it’s not reasonable to for a president to say “‘I was treated unfairly” and then unilaterally decide how much compensation he wants, and order his lackeys to give it to him. What if he decided it was $230 billion? Would you be ok with that? What about $2.3 trillion? What amount of theft from your own tax dollars would it take for you morons to stop licking this guy’s arsehole?

Trump laughs and takes a dump on all of you and you keep coming back for more. Dumbest simps in history.

[jerryskids 7,046]

22 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I am only pissed that the Supreme Court threw out the perfectly valid case claiming that he is immune to the law. Criminals should be held accountable, period.

Trump should be in the big house, not the ruins of the White House.

Either way, it’s not reasonable to for a president to say “‘I was treated unfairly” and then unilaterally decide how much compensation he wants, and order his lackeys to give it to him. What if he decided it was $230 billion? Would you be ok with that? What about $2.3 trillion? What amount of theft from your own tax dollars would it take for you morons to stop licking this guy’s arsehole?

Trump laughs and takes a dump on all of you and you keep coming back for more. Dumbest simps in history.

The first thing I said in the post you quoted was "I can't speak to the amount," so I'm not sure why you typed that screed in the third paragraph.

SCOTUS did not say Trump or any president was "immune to the law," but a lot of seemingly smart posters here have drunk that koolaid.  AI summary:

Quote

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that a president has absolute immunity for criminal acts committed within their "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," but presumptive immunity for other official acts, while having no immunity for unofficial acts. The ruling grants presidents broad protection from criminal prosecution for official conduct, though the precise scope of "official" versus "unofficial" acts will be determined by lower courts. 

 

[The Real timschochet 7,342]

4 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I can't speak to the amount, but legally he should get reimbursed for the lawfare idiocy.  

Bullsh!t. There was no lawfare. He deserved to be indicted and he still deserves to be tried for his crimes. 

[seafoam1 3,383]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Bullsh!t. There was no lawfare. He deserved to be indicted and he still deserves to be tried for his crimes. 

This is awesome. 

[squistion 2,465]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Bullsh!t. There was no lawfare. He deserved to be indicted and he still deserves to be tried for his crimes. 

And defendants are never reimbursed for legal costs incurred for prosecutions that are dropped or otherwise not otherwise successful, that is not how the legal system works in this country (an exception being a "not jury" verdict at the conclusion of the trial in which the judge rules that the prosecution was frivolous and compels plaintiffs to pay defendant's attorneys fees). 

[The Real timschochet 7,342]

What was Donald Trump indicted for in 2023? 
 

1. He paid off a woman he had sex with, using campaign funds, to hide that infidelity from the public in order not to lose votes. 

2. He tried to coerce the Georgia Secretary of State to find additional votes for him so as to change the results of the 2020 election. 

3. He convinced a mob of supporters to invade the U.S. Capitol building and interrupt the democratic transfer of government, and they violently attacked the police and threatened members of Congress and the Vice President, and Trump not only took no action to stop it, he encouraged it and tried to use it to hopefully remain in power. 

4. He took thousands of classified documents home with him and despite several requests refused to give them up, lied about his possession of them, and may have shown them to unauthorized people. 
 

All of these are SERIOUS crimes. He may very well be innocent of some or all of them (outside of #1, he was already found guilty by a jury.) He is after all, like anyone else, entitled to his day in court. But on most of these there never was a day in court, he simply delayed and delayed until he got elected again. None of this was lawfare and he doesn’t deserve a single penny. 

[Maximum Overkill 2,374]

10 hours ago, thegeneral said:

Now I see the money could go to paying for his ballroom in addition to “charity”.

I thought the ballroom was already paid for by donations?

Obama built a basketball court 

Is that racist to say?? 

[seafoam1 3,383]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

What was Donald Trump indicted for in 2023? 
 

1. He paid off a woman he had sex with, using campaign funds, to hide that infidelity from the public in order not to lose votes. 

2. He tried to coerce the Georgia Secretary of State to find additional votes for him so as to change the results of the 2020 election. 

3. He convinced a mob of supporters to invade the U.S. Capitol building and interrupt the democratic transfer of government, and they violently attacked the police and threatened members of Congress and the Vice President, and Trump not only took no action to stop it, he encouraged it and tried to use it to hopefully remain in power. 

4. He took thousands of classified documents home with him and despite several requests refused to give them up, lied about his possession of them, and may have shown them to unauthorized people. 
 

All of these are SERIOUS crimes. He may very well be innocent of some or all of them (outside of #1, he was already found guilty by a jury.) He is after all, like anyone else, entitled to his day in court. But on most of these there never was a day in court, he simply delayed and delayed until he got elected again. None of this was lawfare and he doesn’t deserve a single penny.