T1B

Carson wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:02 am A politician who spins.

Shocking

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:43 pm Does anyone understand what Diego is trying to say?

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:43 pm Does anyone understand what Diego is trying to say?

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:06 pm Hearing the voice of someone who was part of an administration that censored Americans and attacked our freedom of speech makes me ill.

I never wanna see or hear that POS again.

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:43 pm Does anyone understand what Diego is trying to say?

mvscal wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 5:04 pm

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:43 pm Does anyone understand what Diego is trying to say?

Does anyone care?

bungle clone wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:37 pm

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:43 pm Does anyone understand what Diego is trying to say?

I don't even know your language---HighPlainsBender

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:05 pm Says who?

Judge rules Trump use of Alien Enemies Act for gangs is ‘unlawful’

A federal district judge ruled Thursday that the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) does not permit President Trump to swiftly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador, extending a block on the law being used against migrants detained in South Texas.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a Trump appointee, said the rarely used law can only be invoked when an “organized, armed force” is entering the United States, rejecting the president’s claims that he can use it against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA).

The ruling from Rodriguez offered a historical deep dive into the rarely used statute — used just three times prior in U.S. history, and all during times of war — while parsing terms central to igniting the power.

Rodriguez determined Trump’s efforts to use the law to deport alleged gang members strayed from the strict war powers, writing that Trump’s invocation “exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful.”

“The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation. Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of ‘invasion’ for purposes of the AEA,” he wrote.

“While the Proclamation references that TdA members have harmed lives in the United States and engage in crime, the Proclamation does not suggest that they have done so through an organized armed attack, or that Venezuela has threatened or attempted such an attack through TdA members. As a result, the Proclamation also falls short of describing a ‘predatory incursion.’”

Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act has become a flash point in the administration’s sweeping immigration efforts of its first 100 days. The Trump administration deported more than 100 men to a Salvadoran megaprison, often citing their tattoos as evidence of gang affiliation and without giving the men any formal process for refuting the claims.

Thursday’s ruling marks a significant legal victory for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has filed a wave of class action lawsuits in judicial districts across the country on behalf of detained migrants.

It’s also a sign of potential difficulty for the Trump administration as the Supreme Court mulls whether to lift its current block on deportations under the Aliens Enemies Act as it weighs whether to leapfrog the lower courts and provide a nationwide resolution on questions over his power.

Rodriguez is one of several federal judges who temporarily blocked Alien Enemies Act deportations in their districts as the challenges proceed. But Thursday’s ruling marks the first time that a judge has entered their final judgment in one of the cases.

The 1798 Alien Enemies Act enables migrants to be summarily deported amid an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” by a foreign nation. The law was previously invoked during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, most recently used as the basis for Japanese internment. The ACLU has asserted the law can only be used in times of war.

Rodriguez did not adopt that position fully. But he ruled that Trump stretched the law too far, saying it must “involve an organized, armed force entering the United States to engage in conduct destructive of property and human life in a specific geographical area.”

The judge also rejected the administration’s other arguments, including that the courts have no authority to review the president’s invocation of the law.

“Allowing the President to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the AEA, and then summarily declare that those conditions exist, would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch’s authority under the AEA, and would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute’s scope. The law does not support such a position,” he wrote.

Rodriguez also delivered another key victory to the ACLU, agreeing to class certification for all would-be deportees In the Southern District of Texas, averting a scenario in which each would have to file their own petition to fight their removal.

mvscal wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 10:29 pm

poptart wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 9:23 pm
Can one of the Trump fanboys describe how this will not be inflationary?

Thanks!

Inflation is a function of monetary supply. Basically, too much money chasing too few goods. The level of economic ignorance in this country is utterly appalling.

Excerpt from 2022

Tariff increases did not cause inflation, and their removal would undermine domestic supply chains

But it is equally true that the pre-Trump status quo in trade policy for decades was deeply damaging to working families and domestic business. Many of those who inflicted this damaging status quo on U.S. workers have tried to leverage the current inflationary episode to roll back all tariffs introduced under the Trump administration in the name of containing inflation. This is a deeply dishonest linkage. Tariffs introduced over the past five years were not large enough, and the timing of them is completely inconsistent with them being a cause—or plausible significant solution—for today’s inflation.

Further, rolling tariffs back would return efforts to reshore key elements of global manufacturing supply chains to the United States back to square one. Given how damaging fragile global supply chains have proven to be—and how important it is to reshore production back to the United States—claims that tariff rollbacks are an answer to inflation are dangerous. Below, we point out the following salient facts:

The timing of the tariffs clearly shows no correlation with inflation and eliminating tariffs could not plausibly restrain it. The bulk of the tariffs were in place before 2020, yet inflation only began accelerating in March 2021. Clearly, inflation was driven by many sources besides tariffs.
In theory, tariffs do not need to have caused inflation for their removal to help restrain it. In practice, however, the size of the tariffs introduced after 2016 are simply insufficient for their removal to make a dent in current inflation. A top-down estimate that compares tariff revenue (a good proxy for the upper bound on price effects) with personal consumption expenditures shows that removing all 2016 tariffs would lead to a one-time, 0.3-percentage-point reduction in consumer prices.
In the best-case scenario, eliminating tariffs would offset just 7.2% of the total increase in consumer prices, but provide no buffer to price increases thereafter.

https://www.epi.org/blog/tariff-increas ... ly-chains/

You're welcome.

FiatLux wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:56 pm

Sudden Sam wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 4:06 pm Hearing the voice of someone who was part of an administration that censored Americans and attacked our freedom of speech makes me ill.

I never wanna see or hear that POS again.

Biden doesn't own Facebook.

You were banned from Facebook because you have dumbfuckistanian views. Not American.

The Seer wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 4:01 pm Economy
U.S. payroll growth totals 177,000 in April, defying expectations

The unemployment rate, however, stayed at 4.2%, as expected, indicating that the labor market is holding relatively stable.

Job growth was stronger than expected in April despite worries over the impact of President Donald Trump’s blanket tariffs against U.S. trading partners.

Nonfarm payrolls increased a seasonally adjusted 177,000 for the month, slightly below the downwardly revised 185,000 in March but above the Dow Jones estimate for 133,000, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday.

The unemployment rate held at 4.2%, as expected, indicating that the labor market is holding relatively stable. The survey of households, which is used to calculate the jobless rate, showed an even stronger gain, with an increase of 436,000 in those who reported holding jobs on the month.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/02/jobs-re ... -2025.html

Roux wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 9:15 pm No! We must give billionaires another tax cut!

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 9:47 pm

Roux wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 9:15 pm No! We must give billionaires another tax cut!

Trying to be fair here. Where have you ever heard Trump say he wants to give billionaires tax cuts? I’ve never heard that once.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 6:33 am
Your hero admits that his tariff policy is inflationary.

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c62x47d4dgpo

You're welcome.

mvscal wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 11:21 pm

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 6:33 am
Your hero admits that his tariff policy is inflationary.

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c62x47d4dgpo

You're welcome.

That isn't inflation, dumbass.

Mikey wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 11:27 pm2 dolls...deflation

mvscal wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 11:21 pm

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 6:33 am
Your hero admits that his tariff policy is inflationary.

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c62x47d4dgpo

You're welcome.

That isn't inflation, dumbass.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 1:55 am Why are people going to buy only 2 dolls, instead of 30 dolls?


And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple bucks more than they would normally.

- Don

You people are ill.

mvscal wrote:The dolls from China will cost more

Roux wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 10:29 pm “You’re all people who have a lot of money. I know 20 of you and you’re rich as hell. We’re going to give you tax cuts.”

Mikey wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 10:36 pm

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 9:47 pm

Roux wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 9:15 pm No! We must give billionaires another tax cut!

Trying to be fair here. Where have you ever heard Trump say he wants to give billionaires tax cuts? I’ve never heard that once.

One of his big deals is to extend the 2017 TCJA tax cuts, which expire at the end of 2025 and the top marginal rates (along with all the other rates) would revert back to pre-2017 levels. You can argue that this isn’t a tax cut - but it amounts to the same thing, cutting taxes in 2026 and beyond, with most of the benefits going to the wealthiest taxpayers. And adding an estimated $4 trillion to the national debt.

Mikey wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 5:41 am Not very good at math, are you?

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 5:27 pm Ah the classic Left vs Right tax battle.

The Left says 1% of a Billion is more than 1% of a thousand, therefore the outcomes are unequal.
The Right says 1% is 1%. The input is equal.

Both are telling the truth which is why the argument will never resolve.

Mikey wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 6:39 pm

HighPlainsGrifter wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 5:27 pm Ah the classic Left vs Right tax battle.

The Left says 1% of a Billion is more than 1% of a thousand, therefore the outcomes are unequal.
The Right says 1% is 1%. The input is equal.

Both are telling the truth which is why the argument will never resolve.

^^^^
Gets it. Sorta.

When discussing the national debt, it seems that things get reversed. It all depends on whose ox you want to gore.