Chomper Higgot

Oddly enough, the idea that ordinary working people should get something for the taxes they pay is catching on. Stripping money out of food programs to help the poor, gutting Veteran services and hollowing out Medicaid to fund tax cuts for the hyper wealthy is precisely that OPM you talk of.

And yet Bernie and AOC are packing out venues with voters from across both parties eager to hear their progressive message, while Republicans can’t hold a town hall without getting booed and heckled by the ‘Republicans’ they invite to attend.

Except that was never a ‘Dem’ thing. It is however messaging that got millions of Americans to vote for the agenda that is now harming them.

Engaging with Congress would also negate the ever present opportunity for TACO. Which is the absurdity underlying the whole unforced error Trump is engaging in.

The grandstanding idiot is not charged with denigrating an object of veneration. He’s charged as follows: As for burning the U.S. flag, it’s not a crime in the U.S. (protected free speech) provided the flag is your own. That said, only an idiot would expect to not face consequences if they were to travel around various U.S. cities burning Old Glory. Likewise burning religious texts, do it enough times in enough places and pretend to be shocked by the outcome. …. Now who is it that bangs on about flag burning?

What ‘bogus charges’?

That’s a function of how appeals work. Look at that as something new you’ve learned while at the same time having your nonsense claims debunked.

This is the real problem. The CEO sleeping at night with his phone on silent has zero impact on the root causes of this obvious design flaw.

So that’s a no then, the appeals court has not substantiated your ill informed nonsense.

Now you are assuming the appeals court and eventually the SCOTUS agrees with the DOJ filing. The ruling handed down by the US Court of International Trade is replete with legal precedence, case law and SCOTUS rulings. It is folly to dismiss it on the basis of what the administration claims.

Can you provide text within the appeals court ruling that substantiates the claim you made:

There’s a small matter of the Constitution, separation of powers and the rule of law. Trump promising to do things beyond the power of the Presidency in his election campaign does not give him the power to do things beyond the power of the Presidency. The President has his powers within the purview of the Presidency and the Courts have theirs. The fact that the particular court is titled ‘Inited States Court of International Trade’ is a clue to what the court’s purview is. I recommend adding the history of the United States Court of International Trade along with the Constitution of the United States to your reading list. If after that you have some spare time, the courts actual ruling is an informative read.

Yes. Here it is. Feel free to point out errors in my post you replied to: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/court-of-international-trade-trump-tariffs-illegal.pdf

Yet more ill informed nonsense.

Moreover, the original court ruling is stuffed full of legal precedents and SCOTUS case rulings that demonstrate the President is overstepping his authority.

You should perhaps ask those who claim buy-to-let is a free market what they mean by that claim. I do not advocate a ‘free for all market’ in housing or anywhere else.

Moreover, private equity and institutional investors are moving into the buy to let market. Its a perfect example of ordinary working people in competition with the rich for limited resources. https://www.estatesgazette.co.uk/legal/the-rise-of-private-equity-in-the-rental-sector/

It’s always the immigrants with Jonny.

The necessity of Awaab’s law included in the Rebters Rights Act is a direct result of the current market and precisely why regulation is necessary.

Who said anything about Catholics?

It’s a rigged market. Definitely not the ‘free market’ some landlords would have us believe.

I think rent controls a a good idea. Doing business with unfit assets is the landlord’s problem, not that of their tenants.

Yes Jonny, improving their assets. As I presume you are a responsible landlord, I’m sure you support the introduction of the renters rights act and I particular the inclusion of ‘Awaab’s Law’ that will remove the incentive unscrupulous landlords have to undercut responsible landlords like yourself by renting out unsafe properties to their tenants. https://www.housing.org.uk/resources/awaabs-law/

What by applying the same building standard to all new built housing regardless of whether for private purchase or buy to let?

I think Christianity hold that distinction .