placeholder

Well I do feel sorry for them. I remember one elderly gentleman who doubled down during the first collapse and claimed that Trump must have some super clever plan that he's waiting to spring on the world.

It's up to you to prove that a link explaining that Biden had exceeded his power has some sort of relevance to the Court deciding the issue on Constitutional grounds.

Rational because China is rich enough and powerful enough to do it? What has rationality got to do with this?

Please. China claims it owns everything within the nine-dash line, which encompasses about 90% of the South China Sea. No other country is making a claim that is anywhere close to that.

Condescending much more?

Irrelevant. You claimed that the court ruled against Biden on Constitutional grounds. That was the claim I was addressing.

Extraconstitutional? What does that even mean? Do you understand that very few cases decided by the Supreme court actually invoke Constitutional principles? Usually justices search for narrower grounds. Anyway, you claimed that the Justices disqualified Biden's program on Constitutional grounds. Yet you have offered no evidence to support that claim. You've got nothing.

The point of that joke, was, of course, that you're tarring Kamala Harris with Marxism because her Daddy was a Marxist. Literally speaking, the child is not the father to the man. But I figured how else could anyone construe Harris to be a Marxist just because her Daddy was except by taking that proverb literally.

I guess you're a subscriber to the Rumsfeld rule: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I think we all know what that led to. Someone here made a claim that something occurred. It's up to them to back it up: From the landing page of the World News Forum "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news/

What is stupid is claiming that" There is a correlation between virulent atheism and paganism to antisemitism."

Condescending much?

By your reasoning, it wouldn't be aggressive for the United States to build island and claiming economic zones there as well. Except for China, all those countries are claiming islands and governance is areas adjacent to them. And closest to them.

This bogus tactic of yours, which you repeatedly employ, namely misrepresenting the positions others by introducing things they never said , is just more evidence of what little you have to offer The issue isn't whether the Court is indifferent to Constitutional issues. Rather the issue was your claim that the court invoked some kind of Constitutional grounds to disqualify Biden's student loan forgiveness program. It didn't.

The difference is, as noted earlier, the Filipino people are overwhelmingly opposed to China's aggression against their country. And they have a far more favorable view of America than they do of China

No. I am certainly denying your earlier claim at the courts somehow invoked the Constitution to decide against biden's plan. You need to keep track of what you claim.

One could argue that someone who invokes what a real would do when it comes to legal issue is someone not to be taken seriously.

You'll have to provide better evidence than your characterizations. Links?

False. Please provide evidence that Biden ignored a court order.

And l you're missing the point. Vance endorsed refusing to obey a court order and defying the Constitution.

False. They they did not fire civil servants and replace them. Only political employees which happens with every administration.

No.

Even worse. It's as bad as reality. Which is not a coincidence.

And how thoughtful of trump not to warn as many supporters who bought the stock when they went public that in fact it was doomed? Good thing he doesn't know the majority of the shares which he got for free because otherwise people might accuse him of being a grifter... oh, wait a minute...

So that's why the folks at Trump Media wereaccusing short sellers of conspiring to drive down the price of the stock?

Is that because Trump has vowed to pursue an isolationist policy? So what could be more daunting for China than a US President who will stand by and do nothing in the face of Chinese aggression? Well, maybe it's unfair to say do nothing. Maybe he'll raise tariffs even higher.