Is there a question in this sentence? I know logic and critical thinking are not your strong suits, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here...
US appeals court rules wide swath of Trump's tariffs illegal
- Thread starter squeezer
- Start date
The antiwar president is still alive, sadly.
Now he wants to rename the department of defence to better reflect the US fixation on invading petro states and whoever Israel tells them to invade.
Like Chicago.
apparently he thinks the people want troops
Now he wants to rename the department of defence to better reflect the US fixation on invading petro states and whoever Israel tells them to invade.
Like Chicago.
apparently he thinks the people want troops
The problem with this is she has performed poorly live in debates and in on camera interviews. And I think it's because she is a functioning alcoholic. Her past is what got her into office, but her performance in office is what matters.
That's a new one, functional alcoholic. What I will say is that Harris faced the most scrutiny of any VP I've ever seen. Even Dan Quayle got an easier ride despite his numerous fiascos ("potatoe" and picking a fight with a fictional TV character...). What did she do as VP that painted her in a negative light? I mean, to be perfectly frank, the VP is a place holder. Someone who doesn't really do a hell of a lot up until the president is forced to resign. Sure, they break ties in the senate (which she set a record for doing), but other than that, what criticism could you possibly have?
As for the debate between Trump and her??? I thought she cleaned his clock. Unfortunately, so many Americans believe his bullshit, like that Haitian immigrants were eating neighbour's pets or what not. Can you imagine how difficult it is to debate someone who makes up their "facts" and bases a lot of shit on how they feel? I do, I've argued against @richaceg.
She can only handle softball questions or scripted ones...60 minutes have to pay for that bullshit. She was too afraid to go to the Joe Rogan podcast for taht sole reason...She also had no policy and will continue the Biden's horrible one... Americans already rejected that and she was willing to toe the line...the democrats keep doubling down on a fail response to Americans...hence they are about to get decimated in the midterms...they had done nothing at all but cry and whine...they haven't reached out to the voters other than "fight"...Trump isn't even responding to them that much anymore...
LOL
Silly cultist, don't you know facts matter. She can handle hard questions. And 60 Minutes DID NOT need to pay, they would likely have won any court case. The only reasons they settled is because their corporate masters wanted to get their takeover deal approved, which coincidentally happened days after they settle. 60 Minutes did not do anything unethical, all tv news programs like this slice up answers for various reasons; for timing purposes, to improve clarity, to be used to tease/promote the segment and so forth. In fact, Fox News did a similar thing with that famous clip of Trump talking about releasing the Epstein files, where he said he'd release them...and then walked it back a bit because it could damage the reputations of innocent people....
As for "Biden's horrible policies," I'm looking at the US economy right now with inflation surging and Trump pushing unconstitutional bullshit left, right and centre. I guess we'll see what happens in the mid-terms. I recall there was supposed to be a "Red Wave" in 2022...Didn't quite pan out like you guys hoped...
When, recently, have they said no?
They're on 16 or so shadow docket decisions that let him do what he wants since April.
Even if they don't decide on the merits, they just make it so he can keep going until they _do_ decide.
That's what I expect here. A shadow docket decision saying that until they can take it up formally, Trump still gets to do whatever he wants with tariffs.
Then they wait for a case to make it to them and say they will decide some time in 2026 or 2027.
I think its 15:1 for trump at this point.
The Supreme Court Is at War With Its Own Judiciary
Between May 1 and June 23, federal judges ruled against the Trump administration 94% of the time. The Supreme Court backed it 94% of the time.
data4democracy.substack.com
Why would anyone assume the Supreme Court would follow the law?
Yes, the cases should be brought before them so they are forced to make the decisions, but the idea that the merits of the case, or originalism, or even their own precedents are important to how the Court decides seems foolish to actually believe in.
Bomb somewhere in the Americas, I guess.What is Trump going to do now that his 50 day deadline to Russia has passed and (shockingly) been ignored?
Donald Trump's 50-day deadline to Russia expires
The U.S. president threatened tariffs on Moscow if there was no deal to end to the war within the seven-week timeframe.www.newsweek.com
Did she ignore it?
From what I understand, there was some sketchiness about the scheduling on Rogan's end, since he was prioritizing Trump.
Could the Harris camp have pushed harder to find a way to do it?
Probably.
But I don't think it was as simple as "they ignored it".
Kamala Harris called a 'functioning alcoholic', 'broken' as she drops new video https://share.google/aYUX7R3e91HnbhKUZ
Not new. And all those rambling interview answers were a tell while she was on office.
Quite old actually.
That's come up as an attack on her since at least 2020, I think.
I wish they had specified which one they thought was against the Administration.I think its 15:1 for trump at this point.
The Supreme Court Is at War With Its Own Judiciary
Between May 1 and June 23, federal judges ruled against the Trump administration 94% of the time. The Supreme Court backed it 94% of the time.
Like the rumours that trump is a pedo, conman, Russian puppet and either imbecile or suffering from dementia?
Trump keeps on losing Court cases. This is the 4th major case that he lost in four days. Harvard University is the latest that he lost!!
What a LOSER!!
What a LOSER!!
My understanding is they declined an invitation. I think they were prioritizing battleground states at the time, and didn't want to give Rogan three hours. Now, do I think she would be scared to talk to anyone? Nope. But, at the same time, I can see how they might feel like the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Rogan pretended to be undecided, but he surely leaned to MAGA. Would it have been a fair interview? I mean, sure, Trump went on a bunch of shows, but did he face a really partisan leftist panel that would have grilled him about his actual record or called out his lies? Hell, the mainstream media doesn't really do that for the most part, though on the occasions when they did, Trump cried like a little bitch..
LOL
Times of India is not a really respected media outlet. The issue here is that this appears to be a smear job started just over a year ago and being spread by GOP politicians and allies. Now, I'm not going to say that there is a zero chance she could have a drinking problem, but for a side that calls any negative news about Trump a "hoax," I don't really take their allegations seriously.
I used the link because there tends to be a media blackout on this. Just like Biden's cognitive decline. But the videos speak for themselves. That last one from Hawaii especially. Let alone several other weird salad statements.
It happens. The pressure gets to people. And it's a problem that can be resolved. But I'm quite sure, after years of serving functioning alcoholics, that she is one.
She wanted him to go to her, to a staged set, with other conditions. I think he would have given her a fair shake. He did with Bernie Sanders.
It was a missed opportunity imo. If she had gone after, sober, done three hours and did well, it would have helped.
Her larger issue however was the Biden baggage, stuck with his campaign team, the Party refusal to allow her to set her own course, and her own competence in question.
