Trumps Presidency 2025

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Biden really setting up bad precedence for future generations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j95kNwZw8YY&ab_channel=MarcEder

 

Edited Monday at 02:20 PM by gehringer_2

[Tigeraholic1]

19 minutes ago, pfife said:

You brag about voting for the guy whos going to pardon people who attacked the capitol.  Sit this one out hypocrite 

No crying or whining when Trump does it then.

[romad1]

 

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

No crying or whining when Trump does it then.

Will you be as concerned or upset when he does it?

[pfife]

3 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

No crying or whining when Trump does it then.

Those biden just pardon were convicted of nothing.    Those trump is going to pardon were convicted of crimes

Not apples to apples.

You will hear about it as much as we want you to hear it.   Its not your choice.

Edited Monday at 02:24 PM by pfife

[Tigeraholic1]

1 minute ago, pfife said:

Those biden just pardon were convicted of nothing.    Those trump is going to pardon were convicted of crimes

Not apples to apples.

You will hear about it as much as we want you to hear it.   Its not your choice.

Accepting a pardon admits guilt, keep up.

[mtutiger]

Do you think he should pardon the J6 rioters?

Yes or no

[pfife]

1 minute ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Accepting a pardon admits guilt, keep up.

Post who has accepted 

[Tigeraholic1]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Will you be as concerned or upset when he does it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#:~:text=Although the Supreme Court's opinion,In Lorance v.

[mtutiger]

1 minute ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#:~:text=Although the Supreme Court's opinion,In Lorance v.

Will you be as concerned or upset with Trump when Trump pardon's the J6 rioters?

Yes or no, please.

Edited Monday at 02:30 PM by mtutiger

[pfife]

biden also said they were not admissions of wrongdoing.   The biggest liar (proven) in this forum doesn't get to rewrite that to avoid looking like a hypocrite 

Edited Monday at 02:31 PM by pfife

[pfife]

Lol posting a court case for pardons?  Nice understanding separation of powers lol

[gehringer_2]

8 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#:~:text=Although the Supreme Court's opinion,In Lorance v.

What the court says here is immaterial as to any actual truth of the matter. Only an individual himself can speak to his own admission of guilt or claim of innocence. It's strictly legalistic fictions that anything else could be true. Which of course is not to say that the SCOTUS isn't well steeped in legalistic fictions.

And in terms of precedent, there likely is none because cases are specific, and one can only hope the American public will have learned by 2028 that it's a mistake to elect a person who carries on about an enemies list of otherwise innocent people. Well, that may be a little optimistic - we learned it once in 1974 and seem to have forgotten, but I suppose each generation has to learn it once for itself.

Edited Monday at 02:37 PM by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

5 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Will you be as concerned or upset with Trump when Trump pardon's the J6 rioters?

Yes or no, please.

Who knew simple "yes or no" questions could be so hard lol

[pfife]

6 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States#:~:text=Although the Supreme Court's opinion,In Lorance v.

Your article where you highlighted says that what you're claiming is disputed. 

Keep up with your own content please 

[pfife]

Just now, mtutiger said:

Who knew simple "yes or no" questions could be so hard lol

We knew.  After all these are the betas that can't handle 20 degrees Fahrenheit

[mtutiger]

Unreal

[romad1]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Unreal

1.  Of course these crass asshats did..

also 2. did you screen shot that?  I forgot that was an option..  bsky's lack of ease of recycling good posts is hurting it but maybe also helping it not be a vessel for misinformation and other hijinks.

[gehringer_2]

The backsliding begins - Trump won't institute tariffs 'immediately" Gives himself a loophole big enough to drive a 4 yr administration through.

Reality always sucks when you are a narcissist.

 

Quote

Trump will not be imposing tariffs today, a White House official said. Instead, the president plans to issue an executive order that will direct federal agencies to investigate unfair trade and currency practices by other nations, singling out China, Mexico and Canada.

-nyt

[mtutiger]

4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

The backsliding begins - Trump won't institute tariffs 'immediately" Gives himself a loophole big enough to drive a 4 yr administration through.

Reality always sucks when you are a narcissist.

 

-nyt

I'm sure it's temporary, but Tom Homan was out there this weekend equivocating on the Chicago immigration raids scheduled for this week as well.

[oblong]

There’s an ignorance to history. Like Trump needs a guidebook. Anyone foolish enough to think “he wouldn’t have done that unless Biden did it first” deserves to lose their money. 

[CMRivdogs]

https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/inauguration-to-be-held-inside-cybertruck

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In an eleventh-hour decision on Sunday, the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump has been moved from the Capitol Rotunda to the interior of a Tesla Cybertruck.

The change of venue, dictated by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), means that only people with a net worth of over 100 billion will be able to attend.

“There’s room for me, Zuckerberg, and Bezos, but, unfortunately, not JD Vance,” Musk said. “I usually don’t let employees work remotely, but JD will be allowed to call in.”

The decision to hold the Inauguration inside the electric vehicle pleased Trump, who estimated the number of people inside the truck at 4 million.

 

[pfife]

7 minutes ago, oblong said:

There’s an ignorance to history. Like Trump needs a guidebook. Anyone foolish enough to think “he wouldn’t have done that unless Biden did it first” deserves to lose their money. 

it is interesting that a mere 4.5 years ago Trump was considering pardoning himself, which of course had no precedent and he wasn't restrained by said absence of precedent.

[Tigeraholic1]

22 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

The backsliding begins - Trump won't institute tariffs 'immediately" Gives himself a loophole big enough to drive a 4 yr administration through.

Reality always sucks when you are a narcissist.

 

-nyt

But the left was soooo hoping for them.....

[mtutiger]

8 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

But the left was soooo hoping for them.....

Pretty much anybody that purchases consumer goods should not be hoping for the kinds of tariffs ya boy is proposing.