2 hours ago, stevenl said:

They expire in 150 days anyway, not enough time for the legal system.

Oh yes plenty of time,he will have to pay it all back.

I saw a video of trump saying he got 17 or 18 trillion dollars coming in.

Interesting days ahead.

I watched the video for about 2 minutes with Lutnick grinning. So as the usual I''ll wait a day for the PDF transcript.

But the whole thing sounds like a Roy Cohn ploy: Sure we're disappointed. But what we've got now is STRONGER than the IEEPA.

So why not have done that in the first place?

This from CNN:

He said the new avenues had been “approved by the decision” the court handed down today.

“Now I’m going to go in a different direction, probably the direction I should have gone the first time,” he said, calling it “even stronger than our original choice.”

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/trump-administration-us-iran-02-20-26

1 hour ago, JerryM said:

I watched the video for about 2 minutes with Lutnick grinning. So as the usual I''ll wait a day for the PDF transcript.

But the whole thing sounds like a Roy Cohn ploy: Sure we're disappointed. But what we've got now is STRONGER than the IEEPA.

So why not have done that in the first place?

This from CNN:

He said the new avenues had been “approved by the decision” the court handed down today.

“Now I’m going to go in a different direction, probably the direction I should have gone the first time,” he said, calling it “even stronger than our original choice.”

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/trump-administration-us-iran-02-20-26

I would even speculate that he went through the IEAPA because of conservatives in his admn. It was a win-win situation for trump, he either got the tariffs approved or a significant ruling that circumscribes Presidential Power that will far Outlast his presidency. Although Trump is not a true conservative the effect of this ruling hands a major victory to the conservative movement that seeks to circumscribe Presidential Power in favor of congressional action and specificity.

Today is a good day. I never allowed myself to actually think that the SCOTUS would finally say STOP! to Trump. 'Shadow docket' procedural rulings are one thing but this was the first big 'merit' kahuna. And there could be a few more on the way.

9 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I would even speculate that he went through the IEAPA because of conservatives in his admn. I

Spekoolate away.

On 2/20/2026 at 10:13 PM, CallumWK said:

More WINNING

I'm more interested in Trumps new website to provide freedom of speech to the repressed people of the UK and the EU.

Freedom.gov

Doesn't seem to be up and working yet.

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm more interested in Trumps new website to provide freedom of speech to the repressed people of the UK and the EU.

Freedom.gov

Doesn't seem to be up and working yet.

Maybe Trump should start with freedom of speech in the US

Just now, CallumWK said:

Maybe Trump should start with freedom of speech in the US

As always I bet you cannot give us one example of the Trump Administration promoting censorship

5 minutes ago, JerryM said:

Spekoolate away.

You don't agree that the decision significantly advances conservative legal principles?

Just now, Yagoda said:

You don't disagree that the decision significantly advances conservative legal principles?

We could start with Jimmy Kimmel, but there are hundreds more.

Freedom of speech in the US is allowed as long as you praise Trump, if you criticize then it isn't allowed.

12 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

You don't agree that the decision significantly advances conservative legal principles?

The original non govt cases were back by the Koch and Uihlein libertarian think tanks.

2 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

We could start with Jimmy Kimmel, but there are hundreds more.

Freedom of speech in the US is allowed as long as you praise Trump, if you criticize then it isn't allowed.

What action has the government taken against Jimmy Kimmel? Clearly he's been muzzled right?

By the way, what did you win? I won, what did your side win

6 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

What action has the government taken against Jimmy Kimmel? Clearly he's been muzzled right?

By the way, what did you win? I won, what did your side win

How is this for freedom of speech?

AI Overview

As of early 2026, the U.S. government is implementing a, proposal requiring most international visitors, including those from the 42 visa-exempt countries, to disclose five years of social media history, handles, and, for some, phone numbers and email addresses

. This initiative expands on, previous, vetting, procedures, involving,, Federal Register (.gov) U.S. Department of State (.gov) Al Jazeera YouTube NPR CNBC Sky News. The policy targets, social media, platforms, for, screening, to, look, for, potential, security, threats, or, derogatory, comments.

Had Trump acted like a man after the Supreme Court decision, rather than a petulant child, he might have saved a flip in the Senate in the midterms. Now, he blew it.

In any debate, or in any TV commercial, the Dem candidate merely has to say, "My opponent wants YOU to pay more for everything you buy. He wants to make your life even more difficult.

Trump also showed yet again that he is math challenged, when he claimed his tariffs would bring in $17-18 trillion dollars. US Imports---all imports, not just the tariffed ones---are about $3.2 trillion. A 15% tariff isn't going to bring in $17-18 while Trump, or probably even Trump, Jr., are above ground. Also, consumers now know who actually pays the tariffs: the consumer.

23 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

As always I bet you cannot give us one example of the Trump Administration promoting censorship

As always you pretend to know things but again you come on prepared,there are multiple examples of trump doing active censorship.

59 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

As always I bet you cannot give us one example of the Trump Administration promoting censorship

There have been quite a few occasions when Trump, himself, has threatened media censorship. factually.com/fact-checks/politics/donald-trump-media-censorship-attempts-7cb0e9

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

How is this for freedom of speech?

AI Overview

As of early 2026, the U.S. government is implementing a, proposal requiring most international visitors, including those from the 42 visa-exempt countries, to disclose five years of social media history, handles, and, for some, phone numbers and email addresses

. This initiative expands on, previous, vetting, procedures, involving,, Federal Register (.gov) U.S. Department of State (.gov) Al Jazeera YouTube NPR CNBC Sky News. The policy targets, social media, platforms, for, screening, to, look, for, potential, security, threats, or, derogatory, comments.

Human rights laws should be for citizens, not foreigners.

Foreigners should only have the right to return to their home countries.

1 hour ago, Hawaiian said:

There have been quite a few occasions when Trump, himself, has threatened media censorship. factually.com/fact-checks/politics/donald-trump-media-censorship-attempts-7cb0e9

Oh right he was being mean to people. Tell us what's being done. Jimmy Kimmel is out I guess right? You didn't mention him

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Human rights laws should be for citizens, not foreigners.

Foreigners should only have the right to return to their home countries.

When are you going back?

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Human rights laws should be for citizens, not foreigners.

Foreigners should only have the right to return to their home countries.

You're confused. Human Rights laws are universal. You're thinking of other laws.

Cops in Thailand don't have the right to execute you on the spot, for instance.

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

. It was a win-win situation for trump,

So losing 6-3 at a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court for the first big 'merit' case of his second term with 2 more big ones in the hopper * can in someway be considered a win-win.

Did Karoline Leavitt first say that?

* Fed. Gov. Cook & 14th amendment birthright

5 minutes ago, JerryM said:

So losing 6-3 at a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court for the first big 'merit' case of his second term with 2 more big ones in the hopper * can in someway be considered a win-win.

Did Karoline Leavitt first say that?

* Fed. Gov. Cook & 14th amendment birthright

I'll be happy to explain it to you if you don't understand. Has the regulations case been decided yet that's the big one

14 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I'll be happy to explain it to you if you don't understand. Has the regulations case been decided yet that's the big one

Thanks.

4 hours ago, Yagoda said:

I would even speculate that he went through the IEAPA because of conservatives in his admn. It was a win-win situation for trump, he either got the tariffs approved or a significant ruling that circumscribes Presidential Power that will far Outlast his presidency. Although Trump is not a true conservative the effect of this ruling hands a major victory to the conservative movement that seeks to circumscribe Presidential Power in favor of congressional action and specificity.

You think that Trump believes limiting his power to make threats is a win? That he's really for a Presidency with sharply circumscribed powers? A co-equal branch of government? It is to laugh.

Rulings on the pending cases may be influenced after the insults he threw at the SCOTUS judges.

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You think that Trump believes limiting his power to make threats is a win? That he's really for a Presidency with sharply circumscribed powers? A co-equal branch of government? It is to laugh.

Who cares what he thinks, the law is the law. Down with the administrative state.

25 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Rulings on the pending cases may be influenced after the insults he threw at the SCOTUS judges.

The only one petty enough is the one that cant define a woman

6 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Who cares what he thinks, the law is the law. Down with the administrative state.

You're the one who claimed it was a win-win for Trump. It might have been a win for Trump if he just grumbled about the decision and let it go. But now that he's going another route to impose tariffs, he's still shooting himself in the foot. Tariffs are not popular.

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You're the one who claimed it was a win-win for Trump. It might have been a win for Trump if he just grumbled about the decision and let it go. But now that he's going another route to impose tariffs, he's still shooting himself in the foot. Tariffs are not popular.

He has tariffs...win.

His powers and the powers of all future Presidents are correctly defined....win

I dont care what Trump thinks or says unless he agrees with me. I define winning, not him.

20 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I dont care what Trump thinks or says unless he agrees with me. I define winning, not him.

Your modesty becomes you as it seems that your arrogance has even overtaken Trump's!