EPTOh so you just have no clue. Makes sense why you can’t get off his dick no matter how awful he is.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6009
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Billyboy
2508 Posts
Oh so you just have no clue. Makes sense why you can’t get off his dick no matter how awful he is. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46513 Posts
DOJ says it’s investigating whether White House TV pool’s coverage halt violated antitrust law The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating whether the decision of the White House television press pool to halt coverage of President Donald Trump last month violated antitrust law, an agency spokesperson said Saturday. Emily Covington, a spokesperson for the department, said group boycotts among business competitors might violate U.S. law. “The Antitrust Division is simply investigating to determine whether these news organizations have violated the antitrust laws,” she said. The announcement came after the television pool of five broadcasters last month ceased presidential coverage after the administration barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. Messages were sent late Saturday to the five outlets seeking comment: ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX and NBC. The White House press pool, which is a rotating cast of news outlets that covers the president, has become a proxy for the wider fight over whether the president, or anyone, can control the content of news reports — a type of free speech, pillar of American democracy. Last month’s developments marked an extraordinary escalation in Trump’s efforts to restrict news reporters and outlets that he finds insufficiently supportive. CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued over the days-long ban. It was lifted after a judge handed the three news organizations a reprieve, which is in place until Tuesday. Television pool coverage of the White House has also resumed. Jose Zamora, the Committee to Protect Journalists’ regional director of the Americas, on Saturday criticized the administration’s decision to investigate. “The government should not use antitrust investigations to intimidate news outlets defending press access,” Zamora said on X. “The public’s right to know depends on that access.” https://apnews.com/article/trump-press-pool-antitrust-687c09a2377e7033c0b452c893c46e12 | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3312 Posts
On October 11 2026 14:49 Jockmcplop wrote: When I said 'free rein' I didn't mean he literally has limitless power to do anything he wants with the entire universe like Thanos with the gauntlet. I thought that would be obvious. I thought it was obvious too but dyhb compared me to a child molester (again) for assuming that. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24387 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46513 Posts
On October 12 2026 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote: How will we know whether Trump and Republicans have rigged (like a carnival game) the midterms and/or the 2028 cycle or not? Trump and his buddies have pretty much announced every time they've tried to rig previous elections (publicly calling on other countries to interfere on Trump's behalf, bragging about their absurd lawsuits aimed at overturning election results, making calls to state leaders to try to steal electoral votes, planning a violent insurrection, etc.) so we could probably just check Trump's social media posts to see how he'll try to rig any of the 2026 and 2028 elections. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24387 Posts
On October 12 2026 00:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Trump and his buddies have pretty much announced every time they've tried to rig previous elections (publicly calling on other countries to interfere on Trump's behalf, bragging about their absurd lawsuits aimed at overturning election results, making calls to state leaders to try to steal electoral votes, planning a violent insurrection, etc.) so we could probably just check Trump's social media posts to see how he'll try to rig any of the 2026 and 2028 elections. From my perspective they're already clearly rigging it and will get away with it to some degree. So for me, it's more a question of how much is too much? Like a carnival game, it's definitely already rigged (in subtle and not so subtle ways) but how rigged can it get before it's unacceptably rigged? I get the sense it is outcome dependent, but even rigging the results in just mitigating a Republican loss could be enough to doom society. | ||
|
Billyboy
2508 Posts
| ||
|
dyhb
United States785 Posts
On October 11 2026 14:49 Jockmcplop wrote: We have situations where the president is given free rein to do what he wants, and that is specifically possession of the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Obama had that once. The other presidents have struggled with making deals to get their policies through the legislature.When I said 'free rein' I didn't mean he literally has limitless power to do anything he wants with the entire universe like Thanos with the gauntlet. I thought that would be obvious. Read the context clues in the original post. He's got all the power he's going to get. It isn't going to get any easier for him than it has been over the last couple of years, and before he was elected it would never have been feasible for him to have any more power, and he has used that power to the maximum of his ability to do so. The question I was asking was assuming that we live in this reality, that the United States is still the United States, and that the very basic way the law works remains the same. I will admit to you there are cases where I could be wrong where the Trump administration somehow manages to rewrite the whole of American law from the ground up, but I have categorized them as 'unlikely' and ignored them. You don't have to do that I suppose. The point of the question, as those who are able to read context already know, was that a ridiculously huge amount of energy, hatred and anger with extremely negative consequences for everyone has been put into getting a government in place that will fix immigration, because people believe their lives will be much better (or that everybody's lives will be somewhat better) due to the results. Given that its not feasible for Trump to have tried harder, and with fewer restrictions, to get this done, was it worth it, and if you read between the lines I'm asking whether its worth continuing to push further in that direction? Its a really very basic question that is an attempt to get at what people really believe under all the bluster. Apparently it doesn't work because no-one will answer it, because everyone wants to read my posts, pick something to argue with, and argue with that instead of just answering honestly. I think what should be obvious are the parts of the system working poorly to Trump's disadvantage, and the degree to which "resistance" types ignore the parts that are working properly and to Trump's disadvantage. I'll start with the second. There's some doomer resist-types that think fascism already has control of the country. They will say, as LightSpectra says and you ignore for some incomprehensible reason, that Trump can freely ignore court rulings. Why do you ignore this? You haven't said. But by doing so, you instruct people reading your posts that it should be brought up to you for a response. Trump has tried to expand executive power past Biden and past Obama and past the law, and the courts, including specifically the Supreme Court has smacked him down. He's tried to bully the legislature to pass the stuff he wants, or to end the filibuster to do things, and the legislature has rebuffed him. He got a pittance. Standard Republican tax cuts, a bit of criminal justice reform, and USMCA. So now that Trump is nowhere close to free-rein in the common way we can understand language, you can speak on his truly limited role and ability. It's basically trade wars (which should be reformed through Congress to deny Presidential authority), hurting America's image abroad, and enforcing immigration laws that have mostly been situationally and marginally used. I laid out several Supreme Court cases earlier, so please show you have read them and understand how they have limited presidential abuse of power repeatedly. I'll continue for parts of the system that aren't really working, but that's to Trump's disadvantage. His brash character and right-wing immigration politics creates enemies in the courts, and leads to temporary stays, restraining orders, and adverse rulings. The Supreme Court has had to issue order after order and several rulings stopping lower courts from issuing decisions contrary to the law. We might pretend that courts are there to interpret the law, but they have been there to stop what Trump wants to do, whether legal or outside the law. As an example Judge Brian Murphy had his Trump-injunction stayed, but continued to use his authority to enforce a related order to that stayed injunction, drawing it back up to the Supreme Court. He even lost Kagan, in "I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed." Judge Boasberg had continued to pursue a contempt inquiry after a DC circuit court panel reversed, and got reversed again, citing "a clear abuse of discretion." Unprecedented among recent presidents, and really every president since Nixon or FDR, Trump's seen his lawful powers stopped repeatedly by judges that hate all that he stands for. Trump's been forced to take them up to the appeals court and Supreme Court repeatedly, which takes time and the Supreme Court can't hear every appeal on an emergency basis or even at all. In the reality of unprecedented backlash and stoppage, I think the plain meaning of free rein means Trump lacks it. But please do comment that you've read and understand that reasons for why what you said is absurd. | ||
| ||
