placeholder

Anyone who claims that they what they say is the truth without offering evidence to back it up is in effect offering evidence...that they are a simpleton.

Overall, your claims are rarely substantiated.

They're begging for trade deals? Really? You got some evidence for that? Even the leader of Canada's Conservative party has shown nothing but defiance towards Truimp?

While I don't have much use for Liz Cheney, I have to concede that she's got this one right: “If you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far are exceeding their statutory or Constitutional authority, your recourse is to appeal. You don’t get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That’s tyranny.” https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/jd-vance-claims-judges-arent-allowed-to-overrule-president-trump-on-executive-orders-suggests-potus-has-legitimate-power-to-defy-judicial-rulings/

I've been searching for a link to your claim that Justice Thomas believes that district court judges have too much power. Where has he said that? In a decision? In a speech? In some writing?

The most important difference between crack and standard cocaine is that it tended to be consumed by people with lower incomes. Which meant that they deserved harsher punishment. "Crack, a smokable rock form of cocaine, became prevalent in the 1980s, especially among those of lower socioeconomic status (SES) as it was sold in small, cheap quantities (e.g. $5 or $10 compared to the usual $50 or $100 for powder cocaine) (2,3)." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5066573/#:~:text=Crack%2C a smokable rock form,) (2%2C3). Cracks in the System: 20 Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law A comprehensive examination of the 100-to-1 crack versus powder cocaine sentencing disparity under which distribution of just 5 grams of crack carries a minimum 5-year federal prison sentence, while distribution of 500 grams of powder cocaine carries the same 5-year mandatory minimum sentence. https://www.aclu.org/documents/cracks-system-20-years-unjust-federal-crack-cocaine-law

You might want to check the contents of what you're boiling in that pot. "The lawsuit argues that the president is violating the US Constitution and federal law by attempting to dismantle the agency. "Not a single one of defendants' actions to dismantle USAID were taken pursuant to congressional authorization," it says. "And pursuant to federal statute, Congress is the only entity that may lawfully dismantle the agency."" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y6701gl60o

Was Donald Trump mentioned at all in the quote. It was about a polling showing strong public support for social security? The only Trump derangement I can see any evidence for is yours. You are an invaluable and apparently unstoppable rsource of irony.

Really? Because Americans are unfamiliar with what Social Security does? This is laughable. They may not now much about the details but to claim that they don't understand it's basically a retirement program is just nuts. Stop making things up.

Now your seeing Trump derangement in a post that didn't cite him and was only about Social Security? You are an invaluable natural resource of irony.

Because, you, as a self-proclaimed socialist, don't believe that most folk don't want to see government support in their old age be diminished? You're not fooling anybody.

Are you experiencing hallucinations similar to those of Frank83628? I'm going to try and offer you a little cognitive therapy here. I'm going to quote from the original post and then you can tell me where you see the bitching and crying. "85% of Americans Willing to Raise Taxes to Save Social Security, Survey Shows A new survey from the National Academy of Social Insurance, AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in collaboration with Greenwald Research, finds that most Americans are willing to accept tax increases to prevent benefit cuts. The survey shows that 85% of respondents believe Social Security benefits should stay the same or even increase, even if that means raising taxes on some or all Americans. It also found that only 15% of respondents preferred keeping tax rates the same, even if that means reducing benefits. https://www.aol.com/85-americans-willing-raise-taxes-153018526.html

I too think it's important to make that differentiation. But I would phrase it like this: I think it's important to pay back social security to those who have paid into it and their qualified dependents'. But I don't support paying it to imaginary beings. "The only people who can legally collect benefits without having paid into Social Security are family members of workers who have done so. Benefits are based on the qualifying worker’s earnings record and the most common form of such arrangements come as spousal benefits. Other Social Security benefits may be afforded to survivors (typically widows or widowers) or children." https://finance.yahoo.com/news/social-security-receive-payments-never-113011191.html

While I don't ordinarily indulge in personal comments, I have to ask if you've gone off your meds. Are you hearing voices or seeing things not visible to most of us? All I did was quote a news article. Not a word was mine. No "bitching" or "crying" in the text. That it could generate such an over-the-top response from you should be a cause of major concern.

One of the sponsors of the survey was the US Chamber of Commerce. As Americans know, their program is very conservative and advocates for very low taxation.

A new survey from the National Academy of Social Insurance, AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in collaboration with Greenwald Research, finds that most Americans are willing to accept tax increases to prevent benefit cuts. The survey shows that 85% of respondents believe Social Security benefits should stay the same or even increase, even if that means raising taxes on some or all Americans. It also found that only 15% of respondents preferred keeping tax rates the same, even if that means reducing benefits. https://www.aol.com/85-americans-willing-raise-taxes-153018526.html

Vice President JD Vance took to X on Sunday and suggested that President Donald Trump has “legitimate power” to ignore judges when carrying out executive orders, claiming courts “aren’t allowed” to overrule the new POTUS... Vance’s signaling came after tech billionaire and DOGE leader Elon Musk voiced his disapproval of being blocked, along with the Department of Government Efficiency, by a federal judge from accessing sensitive information provided by the Treasury Department. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/jd-vance-claims-judges-arent-allowed-to-overrule-president-trump-on-executive-orders-suggests-potus-has-legitimate-power-to-defy-judicial-rulings/

Well, what you disregard is that the Chevron Doctrine actually reflected the decision of an earlier Supreme Court. In fact, the decision overturning it was extremely contentiious. Polluters are overjoyed about it, though.

So, do yo see any connection to that belief with the graph?

Do you think Trump and Musk are claiming that a) That the number of Federal employees is too low b)That the number of Federal employees is just right c) That the number of Federal employees is too high

Well, now that you put it that way, you've definitely got nothing.

Actually, by striking down the Chevron doctrine, the court is limiting the power of the executive branch. Of course they had to invent a whole new doctrine to justify that.

Thank you for your detailed rebuttal and analysis.

Did you actually listen to the clip you provided, Here is what Senator Warren said: "Pursuant to Rule 12, no debate is permitted during a vote. The Senator will suspend." This is what you believe is an emotional breakdown?

They do resort to using the Federalist papers for gaining insight. Particularly conservative justices. But no one author is dispositive. And that includes Alexander Hamiltonl. But even if the Court did rely utterlyon Hamilton, he was a proponent for a strong executive. Not for a lawless one. I don't know why you think Hamilton opinions in 70 would justify Trump's actions.