mspart

1 hour ago, uncle bernard said:

not debunked actually

yeah, actually completely on the first three.   So your argument is not sustainable.  The next three are up to SCOTUS.   As I said, if SCOTUS says district judges can do these things, Trump will comply unlike a King or Dictator.   if they say district judges can't do this, then Trump comply with SCOTUS, unlike a King or Dictator.  

Very poor excuse for a rebuttal UB.   You need to try harder.   Except you can't because you are wrong. 

mspart

 Hand he's right at the center of political thought.   Just ask, he'll tell you.

mspart

15 hours ago, vsnej said:

Facts

 

Yep, count 1 is not fulfilled yet.

Count 2, Gaza war is worse than ever?   Not even.   That is a stretch to defy rational thought.

Count 3  Trump negotiated and gave Iran 60 days.   No deal at the end of 60 days.  Israel bombs them the day after.  Again, this source of yours is willfully wrong, trying to tell lies that are not true but if told enough, people will believe.   Who's tactic is that?

mspart

Again, you are speaking of district court judges moving out of their lane and going national.   There is a reason they are district courts, because they serve the district, not the nation.   Therefore that would be an unlawful order to follow until further appeal clarifies the situation.

Trump complied with the Abrego decision and Abrego is back, but tied up with federal charges.   So you are wrong. 

Trump sent people to El Salvador.   The district judge said you can't do that and bring them back.   It was too late for that.  But have any illegals since gone to El Salvador?   NO. 

Those are just two of your 0 for 6.  

mspart

I would have said, I don't agree with this you jerkface of a troll, piece of anchovie pizza, woman beater.   Cav, you are a much better man than I.   

mspart

Go back and look.  

mspart

21 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

And yet the "rule of law" gave your cherished president a direct order and he disobeyed it. And you do everything possible to talk your way around that contradiction. Most of the Conservatives on here argued against due process for immigrants, even though our Supreme Court clearly established that to be the law of the land. 

 

I showed that you were 0 for 6 on this count and yet you still are making the same assertions.   Some people can't be taught.

mspart

12 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

I'm not sure how we're supposed to expect people to react in that situation.

Certainly don't expect the torching of waymo cars or looting stores, actions that do nothing to address the issue they supposedly are against. 

mspart

14 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

As I've said a million times on here, Conservatives LOVE authoritarianism. They yearn to see their cultural enemies get stomped by the state.

Their issue with Communist governments was never about the authoritarianism. It was that authoritarianism was being used to enforce leftist ideology, not *their own* conservative ideology.

Absolutely wrong.   Conservatives love the rule of law and personal freedom as outlined in the Constitution.  What looks like authoritarianism to you is the government finally enforcing the law.   Conservatives do not like anarchy.  The issue conservatives have with communism is the lack of personal freedom and government in everything business and personal.  That is borne out by the dismal record of communist governments.  

What you see as authoritarianism, (ICE going after illegals, Feds calling out the Nat guard for ICE riots, etc) is the government enforcing law and order. 

mspart

11 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Come in, pay your taxes, be a good citizen, and you're A-okay in my book. If you break the law, off you go. Simple as that in my opinion.

So you are saying the governments going after criminal illegal aliens is a good thing.   Glad we got that out of the way.   Assuming most feel like you, what is the issue with ICE protests? 

mspart

5 minutes ago, red viking said:

Let's go to war (once again) in the middle East, for the purpose of a regime change. Just like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. What could possibly go wrong. 

Another waste of money and lives. 

Let's send the Republicans over there to fight since this is something they feel is so important. 

Better  yet, lets send the leftists to palestine and Iran and help them defend themselves.   Hopefully they don't open their mouths about equal rights, and gay /trans rights.   Then they will find out why they don't want to be there. 

mspart

4 minutes ago, red viking said:

Provided. The only way you can't see this is if you're immersing yourself in right-wing Fox echo chamber. 

Already debunked mostly.

mspart

11 hours ago, scourge165 said:

I really don't see what the guy did wrong. You need a Warrant to just take someone. Asking for the Warrant is... pretty standard. We're not just going to accept Govt' agencies coming and rounding us up now without a warrant, right? 

The agent saying, 'oh, we've got it.' Well...then provide it!

Why would they need to show him the warrant.   He is not the one that is the subject of the warrant.  Wrong guy asking for the warrant.

mspart

Today, Homan reported that yesterday there were the smallest number of illegal entries ever, under 100.   He compared that to Biden time where thousands were allowed in everyday. 

Which is better UB, RV, Trip?

mspart

I read an opinion piece in The Hill website.   This guy said that Padilla identifies himself and then asked his question and got tackled for it.  That is not what the video showed.  

The video shows him approaching the secretary yelling something (presumably questions) and then gets man handled and is refusing to go with security so there is a struggle and then he identifies himself as Padilla.  

1.  You don't go to a press conference and approach the speaker.

2.  You don't interrupt the speaker while they are in the middle of their statement.

3.   Even if you are a sitting US Senator.  

4.   What happened to him would have happened to anyone doing the same thing. 

mspart

38 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/6-times-trump-administration-clashed-opponents-court-orders/story?id=120846599

6 in here:

1) Deported 100 alleged gang members using Alien Enemies Act. Judge ordered the deportations be stopped. Order came when flight was still in the air. Trump admin first rushed the flight to try to beat the court order, then refused to turn the flight around once the order had been issued.    This is true,   have any more been done?

2) Kilmar Abrego Garcia - illegally deported despite court order (which Trump admin acknowledged) then declined to secure his release and return against the orders of the supreme court    Guess what, Abrego is back in the US facing federal charges.  0 for 2.

3) Continuing to deport immigrants to third country not of their origin (El Salvador) after Judge issued a restraining order banning this practice until they had their due process right to raise concerns   I have not heard that this is happening.   I just read about this in your article and the hearing was last week and the admin is cooperating.   0 for 3.

4) Freezing federal funds and not dispersing to states despite clear court orders to do so.   Trump authorities disagree with the judge in this case.   There is still a question whether a district court judge can make such sweeping decisions.   I believe that is before the SCOTUS.   If SCOTUS says to pay the money, the money will be paid.   If they say no need to pay the money, the money will not be paid.   The Admin will follow SCOTUS ruling.   I would say 0 for 4, but this one is still in work.  

5) Blocking FEMA grants against direct court orders   I don't know if this is part of the SCOTUS/district court discussion but assume it is so see item 4 above.  So 0 for 5 probably.

6) Freezing foreign aid against direct court order    Again, this is a district court determining foreign policy.   The admin disagrees there is proper authority.   SCOTUS will decide.    0 for 6 probably. 

So UB, you are 0 for 3 definitely, and 0-6 most likely based on probably SCOTUS decisions.   Historically, district courts can only deal with the case before them, applying only to their district.   Yet there have been a huge number of district court injunctions against the Trump admin that go outside their district.    So that is a  Constitutional question that should be dealt with.  

mspart

14 hours ago, Doublehalf said:

I get we all come from different walks of life, occupations, geography, urban vs rural etc... not only do I think it's ok to have debate and disagreements but I think if we are open minded we can all learn from each other. That's assuming we can reach a higher level of consensus but it seems we are in a world so far from that right now. 
 

Agreed and thank you.

mspart

I think they should be in uniform, without names on the uniform, but identified as ICE etc.   Masks are ok to keep from creeps identifying them so they and their families are as safe from nefarious goons as possible.  

If, and I mean if, this is really happening, then there is no doubt someone will get shot for their own protection.   By if, I mean I have not heard of this, but am not ruling it out as the law enforcement is trying to stay safe. 

mspart

15 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Was it a good idea to pretend to negotiate to lure Iran into thinking there was a deal on the table just to lull them into a galsnssnes of security so Israel could offensively bomb them with our sanction and then threaten to assassinate the leader of the country?  Of course, otherwise his Infallible Donaldness wouldn't have done it!  Statecraft 101!  War is peace!  Freedom is slavery!  Ignorance is strength!

They had 60 days to negotiate.   Apparently they didn't.  So Trump goaded them not to sign an agreement?

mspart

Please someone, talk to Tesla.  I saw one of these on the road the other day. 

mspart

On 6/15/2025 at 6:32 AM, Scouts Honor said:

how quickly you have forgotten obama

and the lefts calls for him to be king

17 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Obama's presidency ended in 2017. 

So as far as "the lefts calls" for him to be king is ... dumb. No real people are calling for anything of the sort.

That's just you being dumb.

6 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

lol

 

Ouch!!!!   That had to hurt!

mspart

Is the JPCOA the deal that Obama gave Iran and in exchange sent huge bags of unmarked bills totaling billions of dollars?   That was a great deal.   Turned them back into a terrorist funder. 

mspart

5 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Our Dear Leader, and the most esteemed statesman, has let the world know that we (and he) know exactly where the leader of Iran is, but we are not going to kill him....not yet, anyway.  The Peace keeps rolling in!

Do you not think that is a pretty good negotiating tactic, especially since many of his right hand men have been eliminated.   They knew where they were and now they are gone.   He is in a precarious position and owes his life to restraint or so Trump would have him believe.   It would be a death wish to continue on the path he has been on, or so Trump would have him believe.  

Interesting that these religious islamists don't feel the need to keep their promises to the unwashed.    Anything negotiated is not worth the paper that it is written on.  Time and time again.   How many times do they need to do this before we figure out their M.O.  

mspart

Yianni was the next coming when he entered college.   He did great in college but never had the promised success in the world scene.  Duke, a HS'er, beats him to make the World Team.    Now that is really something.    How would it be to be that good in HS?   Wow!

mspart

Classic.

mspart