Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
I know very little about this topic, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this supposed to be Congressional/legislative jurisdiction? Or does the executive branch actually have the authority to do what Trump is doing?
The US never actually removes a sitting president before the term is up. So they can do whatever they want and the only limitation is if people carry out what they order or not. Sometimes other parts of the government stops the president, most of the time they go along with him.
Or you end up in the alternative of it going to court because the congress and senate is so dysfunctional they are largely irrelevant outside of stopping budgets now and then. Then we hit GH route of a stacked court.
I can think of a few times the president was removed before his term was up tbf
I know very little about this topic, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this supposed to be Congressional/legislative jurisdiction? Or does the executive branch actually have the authority to do what Trump is doing?
The US never actually removes a sitting president before the term is up. So they can do whatever they want and the only limitation is if people carry out what they order or not. Sometimes other parts of the government stops the president, most of the time they go along with him.
Or you end up in the alternative of it going to court because the congress and senate is so dysfunctional they are largely irrelevant outside of stopping budgets now and then. Then we hit GH route of a stacked court.
I can think of a few times the president was removed before his term was up tbf
Only four ones I can think of:
Four sitting presidents have been killed: Abraham Lincoln (1865, by John Wilkes Booth), James A. Garfield (1881, by Charles J. Guiteau), William McKinley (1901, by Leon Czolgosz), and John F. Kennedy (1963, by Lee Harvey Oswald).
I would personally not object to that solution for the current president. Don't really see it changing much, just another person that gets bribed to implement specific policies. His vice president is just more of the same.
I know very little about this topic, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this supposed to be Congressional/legislative jurisdiction? Or does the executive branch actually have the authority to do what Trump is doing?
The US never actually removes a sitting president before the term is up. So they can do whatever they want and the only limitation is if people carry out what they order or not. Sometimes other parts of the government stops the president, most of the time they go along with him.
Or you end up in the alternative of it going to court because the congress and senate is so dysfunctional they are largely irrelevant outside of stopping budgets now and then. Then we hit GH route of a stacked court.
I can think of a few times the president was removed before his term was up tbf
Four sitting presidents have been killed: Abraham Lincoln (1865, by John Wilkes Booth), James A. Garfield (1881, by Charles J. Guiteau), William McKinley (1901, by Leon Czolgosz), and John F. Kennedy (1963, by Lee Harvey Oswald).
I would personally not object to that solution for the current president. Don't really see it changing much, just another person that gets bribed to implement specific policies.
On January 25 2025 01:18 GreenHorizons wrote: About that sig quote...
Look guys, it is going to be at least a year before you are even thinking about falling in line behind Democrats (besides spending the next year or so making excuses for their impotence/incompetence). What harm would there be in redirecting a fraction of the time you'll spend arguing the most inane things you can with BJ, oBlade, posters like that, to sincerely exploring whether revolutionary socialism might offer something better than lib/Dem politics? At least while you wait to find out who you'll be voting for almost 2 years from now.
I don't expect everyone that gives revolutionary socialism a try to become one, but I'm confident that anyone here that refuses to try while perpetually engaging in bad faith distractions with the BJs and oBlades simply isn't serious about wanting to stop the rise of fascism in the US.
You all tried the Democrat strategy. They have nothing for you to do until it's voting time again. Just TRY revolutionary socialism (I'd settle for socialism generally at this point) on for a bit. You have nothing to lose but your chains.
I know this was a little while ago but I'm still thinking about this post.
What I don't really understand is what "try socialism" means. When you append "revolutionary" it makes more sense, you know, overthrowing the bad people in politics and all that. Been discussed in the thread already.
How does an average person "try socialism" though? Moving to a country with more socialist policies in place? Otherwise I don't see how a rando has any power to decide what system they're under, at least not without the "revolutionary" part.
And if it's just about proselytising, I don't know what precludes trying to make the most of the current system while doing so. Like all the accelerationist stuff is surely the "revolutionary" part, a way of helping that happen.
I know very little about this topic, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this supposed to be Congressional/legislative jurisdiction? Or does the executive branch actually have the authority to do what Trump is doing?
The US never actually removes a sitting president before the term is up. So they can do whatever they want and the only limitation is if people carry out what they order or not. Sometimes other parts of the government stops the president, most of the time they go along with him.
Or you end up in the alternative of it going to court because the congress and senate is so dysfunctional they are largely irrelevant outside of stopping budgets now and then. Then we hit GH route of a stacked court.
I can think of a few times the president was removed before his term was up tbf
Four sitting presidents have been killed: Abraham Lincoln (1865, by John Wilkes Booth), James A. Garfield (1881, by Charles J. Guiteau), William McKinley (1901, by Leon Czolgosz), and John F. Kennedy (1963, by Lee Harvey Oswald).
I would personally not object to that solution for the current president. Don't really see it changing much, just another person that gets bribed to implement specific policies. His vice president is just more of the same.
I don't think it would change anything either, Trump doesn't have the braincells to organize the kind of nefarious revamping of civil service that is going on right now. He's just golfing, rallying and signing papers.
The Heritage Foundation/Project 2025 fellas didn't know about PDF metadata and forgot to scrub their names as authors of the memos they made stooges send out.
On January 28 2025 16:28 Legan wrote: What will cause the first big protest wave? Georgia and Slovakia are much smaller countries so protest are easier to organize, but one could assume that USA doesn't need a person of color to die publicly before they start protesting.
Who's going to protest? Hispanics and muslims went big for Trump, people like gh materially arguing about how he would be better for these people. A black woman was literally on the ballot and these groups shat on her historically.
At some point you need to recognize that this is what they wanted.
People of conscience (Democrats will probably tell them to stop and help crackdown on them like the campus protests).
Hispanics and Muslims didn't go "big for Trump". I certainly didn't argue Trump would be better for them. Turns out there's more to identity politics than the hollow version Democrats coopted.
That said, Trump lost Hispanic, Muslim, and Black people. If the country recognized what those groups wanted, Trump would never have been president. The only majority Trump got was with white people, including white women.
I feel like if you said "at some point you have to recognize this is what they wanted" about women losing their bodily autonomy it would be more obviously stupid to more people than the clearly bigoted slop you just posted.
Lol so no structure no leadership no goals, no demands, and no hope protests that people will lose intrest in quickly.
That sums up Democrats right now pretty well. Though they have plenty of "structure".
If these "people of conscience" really existed they would have followed the very basic instructions in order to prevent this.
We did, we're outnumbered by genocidal Democrats that insisted on running Biden though.
Instead, we see people like you who spend all their time and energy enabling this outcome before washing your hands of the consequences.
That was genocidal gaslighting Democrats insisting on rationalizing genocide and supporting a husk of a human in Biden.
You would be right if I said that about women, but ignoring the will of the people and constantly ignoring the agency of those groups actions is more bigoted than saying only white people have the capacity for racism.
You effectively did. Now you're making the completely unhinged argument that white women, a majority of which supported Trump, aren't the people "you have to recognize this is what they wanted". Instead it's minority groups that voted for someone else over Trump you're moronically saying "Trump is what they wanted"
It's naked bigotry and pathetically (and dangerously) oblivious to Democrats/their ilk culpability in their failure to stop Trump which was the only rationale they had for their support of genocide and the rest.
I know very little about this topic, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this supposed to be Congressional/legislative jurisdiction? Or does the executive branch actually have the authority to do what Trump is doing?
The US never actually removes a sitting president before the term is up. So they can do whatever they want and the only limitation is if people carry out what they order or not. Sometimes other parts of the government stops the president, most of the time they go along with him.
Or you end up in the alternative of it going to court because the congress and senate is so dysfunctional they are largely irrelevant outside of stopping budgets now and then. Then we hit GH route of a stacked court.
I can think of a few times the president was removed before his term was up tbf
Only four ones I can think of:
Four sitting presidents have been killed: Abraham Lincoln (1865, by John Wilkes Booth), James A. Garfield (1881, by Charles J. Guiteau), William McKinley (1901, by Leon Czolgosz), and John F. Kennedy (1963, by Lee Harvey Oswald).
I would personally not object to that solution for the current president. Don't really see it changing much, just another person that gets bribed to implement specific policies. His vice president is just more of the same.
I don't think it would change anything either, Trump doesn't have the braincells to organize the kind of nefarious revamping of civil service that is going on right now. He's just golfing, rallying and signing papers.
The Heritage Foundation/Project 2025 fellas didn't know about PDF metadata and forgot to scrub their names as authors of the memos they made stooges send out.
Anyone that told you here and elsewhere that this wasn't going to happen did so because they wanted it to happen.
I think in the short term, Trump is better than Vance.
Trump's main strength is his ability to get elected despite... you know... literally everything about himself and his agenda. Now that he's been elected, he's a bit of a liability to the true fascists. He's going to move in the general direction they want, but he's also going to bumble around and fall on his face a bunch because he's a useless egotistical manbaby.
If someone assassinates Trump days after he's taken power, that's just handing a blank cheque to P2025. The fascists would still have control of the entire system but they wouldn't have to route their power through a useless egotistical manbaby anymore. It's not a solution, imo.
I don't think I'll actually get that buyout offer, but I wouldn't accept it either way. Setting aside the fact that I'm currently committed to my mission and I don't want to tank my pension... I don't actually trust the offer. People who accept are supposed to get paid through September, but I can see the payments cutting off after the first month or two. Trump's done way worse.
I know very little about this topic, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this supposed to be Congressional/legislative jurisdiction? Or does the executive branch actually have the authority to do what Trump is doing?
The US never actually removes a sitting president before the term is up. So they can do whatever they want and the only limitation is if people carry out what they order or not. Sometimes other parts of the government stops the president, most of the time they go along with him.
Or you end up in the alternative of it going to court because the congress and senate is so dysfunctional they are largely irrelevant outside of stopping budgets now and then. Then we hit GH route of a stacked court.
I can think of a few times the president was removed before his term was up tbf
Only four ones I can think of:
Four sitting presidents have been killed: Abraham Lincoln (1865, by John Wilkes Booth), James A. Garfield (1881, by Charles J. Guiteau), William McKinley (1901, by Leon Czolgosz), and John F. Kennedy (1963, by Lee Harvey Oswald).
I would personally not object to that solution for the current president. Don't really see it changing much, just another person that gets bribed to implement specific policies. His vice president is just more of the same.
I don't think it would change anything either, Trump doesn't have the braincells to organize the kind of nefarious revamping of civil service that is going on right now. He's just golfing, rallying and signing papers.
The Heritage Foundation/Project 2025 fellas didn't know about PDF metadata and forgot to scrub their names as authors of the memos they made stooges send out.
Anyone that told you here and elsewhere that this wasn't going to happen did so because they wanted it to happen.
I remember being told on this thread that project 2025 was nothing to worry about, not at all related to Trump. It was TDS or democrat fear mongering even talking about it.
So to the people who said that, were you lying? If not you really need to stop trusting those sources. And how do you feel about project 2025 now? Is it now good because Trump is saying that now?
I checked the thread prior to the election... the only real mentions of Project 2025 that weren't criticisms were either Introvert saying it was a foolish thing for Democrats to focus on strategically (without specifying whether it was actually bad and/or connected to Trump) and oBlade mentioning once or twice that Project 2025 and Trump are distinct. You may have seen more of that behavior in other places outside of this thread, though.
Cutting all forms of solidarity with the less fortunate seems to be on character for a government of billionaires that only listen to you over campaign..or inauguration... donations or bribes above $150k.
On the good news:
People who actually care about freedom and democracy managed to get patriot missles to UA via Israel.
I hope this continues. Allows trump to openly put a turd in the freedom punch bowl and kiss Putin's ass, while in reality UA still gets the good stuff.
On January 29 2025 11:41 Billyboy wrote: My apologies if I mixed that up.
Well, that's 2/3 of the right wing voices in this thread. You didn't hear it much because there are really only 3 of them. But 2 of them defended project 2025 as irrelevant and not something Trump would do. Small sample size, but seems very much on-brand...
I know very little about this topic, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this supposed to be Congressional/legislative jurisdiction? Or does the executive branch actually have the authority to do what Trump is doing?
The US never actually removes a sitting president before the term is up. So they can do whatever they want and the only limitation is if people carry out what they order or not. Sometimes other parts of the government stops the president, most of the time they go along with him.
Or you end up in the alternative of it going to court because the congress and senate is so dysfunctional they are largely irrelevant outside of stopping budgets now and then. Then we hit GH route of a stacked court.
I can think of a few times the president was removed before his term was up tbf
Only four ones I can think of:
Four sitting presidents have been killed: Abraham Lincoln (1865, by John Wilkes Booth), James A. Garfield (1881, by Charles J. Guiteau), William McKinley (1901, by Leon Czolgosz), and John F. Kennedy (1963, by Lee Harvey Oswald).
I would personally not object to that solution for the current president. Don't really see it changing much, just another person that gets bribed to implement specific policies. His vice president is just more of the same.
I don't think it would change anything either, Trump doesn't have the braincells to organize the kind of nefarious revamping of civil service that is going on right now. He's just golfing, rallying and signing papers.
The Heritage Foundation/Project 2025 fellas didn't know about PDF metadata and forgot to scrub their names as authors of the memos they made stooges send out.
Anyone that told you here and elsewhere that this wasn't going to happen did so because they wanted it to happen.
I remember being told on this thread that project 2025 was nothing to worry about, not at all related to Trump. It was TDS or democrat fear mongering even talking about it.
So to the people who said that, were you lying? If not you really need to stop trusting those sources. And how do you feel about project 2025 now? Is it now good because Trump is saying that now?
Neither James Sherk nor Noah Peters are Project 2025 authors. Sherk was part of his first administration.
One key thing Blumpf and most leftists have in common is not having read Project 2025. For example, two components of its recommendations are border security and lower taxes. Those are things Blumpf supported, and did, 8 years ago. That's before the book came out. So to not read Project 2025, then presume or declare it to be for example a far right white supremacist Christofascist boogeyman manifesto, then look at Blumpf, who still wants border security and lower taxes, and then go "see that's exactly what Project 2025 said! This is proof Blumpf is instituting far right white supremacist Christofascism (or whatever)" is fundamentally a "You know who else drank water? Hitler." level of political analysis. That is the "TDS Democrat fear mongering" part. The argument gets even weaker once you open up the publication and realize it's different than the way Huffington Post described it, but most importantly campaign season is over. Unfortunately firing people of suspect import, making people go to the office, offering to buy out federal workers, making government more efficient - if these things have been politicized because the government is a massive UBI program for Democrats, then so be it, but this isn't 20 years ago you shouldn't expect a Republican president to do Democratic policies as they aren't the same anymore.
Project 2025 revolves around weakening the influence of elections further, by empowering courts and "For life" judges to rule on manufactured law-suits, and using the case-law system to apply rulings to all parts of the country, and other fields of business or life.
No longer shall elected legislators rule, but appointed judges should bend and ban existing law.
Access to courts needs a lot of cash and a reason, both usually held by companies.
Any and all obstruction to profit needs to be mowed down, from DEI over enviormental concerns, worker rights, consumer rights and health endangerment.
There should be lead in your drinking water, and it should cost 10x more to have "unleaded" water. Because business first.
On January 29 2025 22:35 Uldridge wrote: Remind me again how much of that border he secured in his first term? And give me a good faith, COVID excluded, answer, if you can manage that.
A lot? Even Biden did a lot to help secure the border after letting it fester out of control for 2 years. Anyone outside of partisan hacks acknowledge that Biden could have and eventually did do a lot more to secure the border. Here's Jon Stewart saying it with Bernie Sanders agreeing with him:
On January 29 2025 22:35 Uldridge wrote: Remind me again how much of that border he secured in his first term? And give me a good faith, COVID excluded, answer, if you can manage that.
A lot? Even Biden did a lot to help secure the border after letting it fester out of control for 2 years. Anyone outside of partisan hacks acknowledge that Biden could have and eventually did do a lot more to secure the border. Here's Jon Stewart saying it with Bernie Sanders agreeing with him:
I'm pretty sure Uldridge was talking about Trump, not Biden. Trump put up a negligible amount of border wall/fence. The video clip you posted was about Biden's administration waffling back and forth about their own border security scenarios, not about Trump or Project 2025.
How is "a lot" not a straight answer lol. Trump did far more than Biden, such as his remain in Mexico policy which Biden scrapped as soon as he got to the White House. I offered the Biden example because I thought it would be an easier pill to swallow for anyone under the illusion that Biden's handling of the border in 2021-2023 is basically a wash with Trump's handling of the border simply because some people got in during both periods. If you have 5x more illegal crossings it's fairly reasonable to say that the border is "a lot less secure."
EPT
