President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

Only the needy can access those roads? Some sort of inverted toll in place?
Nice try to move the goalposts. Those roads are allocated (built) because they're in an economically lagging area. There's no way to justify their construction other than economic development. Since you mention it though, mainly the needy will access them.
 
Please - he tweets like a 12 year old girl. And uses silly nicknames like a 10 year old boy.
He's as vindictive and petty as a15 year old girl who just got dumped.

On average - 13.4 year old female.
So Pedo Joe would love to sniff that hair
 
Huh? A couple more what? My post was about looking stupid in the trade wars. I try to avoid useless posters who deal in deflections. Go on this tangent alone.
Your post was some skit insinuating Trump would back down on some of these deals. I simply gave proof that his tough stance on issues is/has paid dividends. This is what a true leader does and what we have sorely missed over the last 4 years.

Sorry you did not understand, I will explain myself better for you in the future.
 
Last edited:
Then why would an EO be necessary?
from ACLU website:
"Article II of the Constitution vests the president with executive power over the government, including the obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” An executive order is a written directive, signed by the president, that orders the government to take specific actions to ensure “the laws be faithfully executed.” It might mean telling the Department of Education to implement a certain rule, or declaring a new policy priority. Executive orders, however, cannot override federal laws and statutes."

Trump would sign an EO to insure that his administration enforces that already existing law.

It's the leftist frivolous lawsuits that are the problem, not Trump's EOs
 
It's the leftist frivolous lawsuits that are the problem, not Trump's EOs
The potus does not control the judicial. This is basic civics

No, they're trying to intimidate people into not challenging their policies. That's simply unconstitutional as I posted earlier. Not sure many in this admin care though

this will boomerang and the whining from the right will happen. No foresight
 
No, govt spending should not be included in GDP numbers. It needs to be separated.
if gov't is removed from GDP then we have been in a recession last 4 years. Since DOGE is reducing gov't growth it will have a negative impact on GDP which the liberal media will accuse Trump of creating a bad GDP even though that bad GDP only effects the gov't not private citizens/businesses.
 
if gov't is removed from GDP then we have been in a recession last 4 years. Since DOGE is reducing gov't growth it will have a negative impact on GDP which the liberal media will accuse Trump of creating a bad GDP even though that bad GDP only effects the gov't not private citizens/businesses.

Oh well.
 
Trump has made the extraordinary move to pull all military funding from Ukraine. Vladimir Putin’s press secretary has responded by saying that American policy now “largely aligns” with Russia’s interests.

The ‘evidence is in’: Trump is an agent of Putin
 
Trump has made the extraordinary move to pull all military funding from Ukraine. Vladimir Putin’s press secretary has responded by saying that American policy now “largely aligns” with Russia’s interests.

The ‘evidence is in’: Trump is an agent of Putin

1741372711463.png

Obviously Putin is behind this.
 
as usual the Rs and the Ds see the same issue and want to approach it in two different ways.

The Ds want to take more money from some, so that they can give more money to a different group. even though the taking creates more of the needy.
the Rs want* to take less money from all, so that people don't need as many government handouts.

*trump is just a D in disguise.
I don't think the Rs want to do that. Their policies add costs to the middle class and down while taking taxes off the plate of those at the top. The current proposal hits the middle of the road payer with something like $1500 more a year.
 
You see a black man interrupting. I see a man.
You see his interruption as justified. I see it as wrong time, wrong place.
You see a slippery slope to bigger issues. I see partisan politics.

Other Reps have been censured. We didn't return to the 50s then. We won't know. Which makes her bombastic, irrational rhetoric worthy of mocking.
You don't condone. Great. A point of agreement. You are rationalizing the behavior. I am not.
The last disrupting rep I recall was Joe Wilson. He was reprimanded. I can google all the ones who have been censured if it would help the discussion.
When you do, you'll see that he's the first being censured for this, at least from what I could tell. Again, are we censuring everyone that does this or only guys on the other side of the aisle?
 
When you do, you'll see that he's the first being censured for this, at least from what I could tell. Again, are we censuring everyone that does this or only guys on the other side of the aisle?
If I understand politics like I think I do, the party in power would likely reprimand or censure an opposing party Rep and not "punish" their own.

Wikipedia has a list of censured Reps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
Advertisement

Back
Top