Trump Presidency

[Skid Mark]

Just look at this level of stupidity on full display and tell me you think these people are competent to find their own ass with both hands, let alone overthrow democracy:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1DYhaA
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-p ... revention/

Speaking of stupidity, get a load of this retard that most of you voted for:

https://x.com/liz_churchill10/status/19 ... 5823027661

Man o man, did we ever dodge a bullet.

Oh, and here is one of the Dem's up-and-coming stars:

https://x.com/GerryCallahan/status/1917926672101224642

What a f*** genius!

[XtremeJibber2001]

Just look at this level of stupidity on full display and tell me you think these people are competent to find their own ass with both hands, let alone overthrow democracy:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1DYhaA
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-p ... revention/

Speaking of stupidity, get a load of this retard that most of you voted for:

https://x.com/liz_churchill10/status/19 ... 5823027661

Man o man, did we ever dodge a bullet.

She's not a great or eloquent public speaker, but help me out here. What's your issue with this? How does this clip demonstrate she's stupid?

[asher2789]

youre hung up on legality. this man doesnt give a f*** about legality. of course we all know he "cant" run for a third term, just like he "cant" deport citizens or ignore the unanimous SCOTUS ruling but hes doing all of that.

Not quite right. I'm hung up on the support he needs from the military. What I'm positing is that the military will not support him, and without their support, he cannot stay in power. But in order for the military to feel comfortable ignoring his orders and acting to remove him, they need color of law - which will be on their side.

If Trump were a better leader we'd be in much more trouble. But he's an incompetent fool and anybody who works for him for any length of time comes to appreciate that. So when push comes to shove, they won't support him. I mean look at what happened on Jan 6 - his own secret service refused to take him to the protest.

i know its hard to keep up with the amount of sh*t trump is throwing at the fan, but he fired just about everyone with the power to stop him in the military as one of his first moves upon taking office:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... fears.html
https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... neral.html
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/it ... seth-says/
https://www.expressnews.com/news/articl ... 185192.php

one of the reasons trump got elected in 2016 is because the "adults in the room" pointed and laughed and said it would never happen, that buffoon will never be president. then this time around, the "adults in the room" believed the country would never elect a convicted felon. well, the adults in the room dont know what the hell theyre doing and need to stop underestimating his abilities as a form of coping with the situation spinning wildly out of their control.

[easyrider16]

Sorry, getting rid of some JAG officers and few top brass will not cut it. They'd need to replace hundreds and hundreds of officers below that level to really get control.

In the U.S. military, the joint chiefs are theoretically the heads of each branch. But they have no combat duty troops under their direct command. Instead, they issue orders to lower level officers who nominally command large numbers of troops in various combat areas throughout the world, and those officers then delegate more specific orders to yet more lower-level officers. So you'd need to replace officers down to that level to really get a firm hold of the military. You're talking about hundreds if not thousands of officers. If you just count generals, there are over 500 in the U.S. military. Below that, there are over 2,000 colonels.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Sorry, getting rid of some JAG officers and few top brass will not cut it. They'd need to replace hundreds and hundreds of officers below that level to really get control.

In the U.S. military, the joint chiefs are theoretically the heads of each branch. But they have no combat duty troops under their direct command. Instead, they issue orders to lower level officers who nominally command large numbers of troops in various combat areas throughout the world, and those officers then delegate more specific orders to yet more lower-level officers. So you'd need to replace officers down to that level to really get a firm hold of the military. You're talking about hundreds if not thousands of officers. If you just count generals, there are over 500 in the U.S. military. Below that, there are over 2,000 colonels.

The My Lai Massacre, literally the only example we have, would like to have a word.

Calley issued an illegal order to the 1st Platoon of Charlie Company. While this was only ~30 soldiers, they carried out the order. The 2nd and 3rd Platoons (~30 soldiers each) followed suit, but to a much lesser extent. Some soldiers refused, but pretended to carry out the order by firing into the air or ground.

The only reason the massacre wasn't worse was because a nearby US military helicopter pilot noticed what was happening, landed his helicopter between Charlie Company and the civilians being murdered, and ordered his helicopter crew to fire on any US soldier murdering civilians. It was just the pilot and two other soldiers - I'd say they got pretty lucky.

They were penalized for escalating this up the chain of command. Members of congress called these men traitors. They endured over a year of abuse by their fellow countrymen until it was finally made public almost two years later.

30+ years later the Army recognized these men w/ the Soldier's Medal for their heroism.

[easyrider16]

I'm pretty sure Trump couldn't hold the White House with a single platoon. Also, apples, meet oranges. You're talking about lieutenants in a combat theater. I'm talking about general officers who've spent 30 years defending something they believe in being asked to throw that away to support a guy they don't even like.

But even in your example - the pilot came in and tried to thwart what he saw were illegal actions. You don't think that would happen all up and down the line if a POTUS tried to seize power with the military?

[XtremeJibber2001]

No surprises here ...

Supreme Court allows Trump to enforce Alien Enemies Act for rapid deportations
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/07/politics ... index.html

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump to enforce the Alien Enemies Act for now, handing the White House a significant victory that will let immigration officials rely on a sweeping wartime authority to rapidly deport alleged gang members.

The unsigned decision in the case, the most closely watched emergency appeal pending at the Supreme Court, lets Trump invoke the 1798 law to speed removals while litigation over the act’s use plays out in lower courts. The court stressed that people deported going forward should receive notice they are subject to the act and an opportunity to have their removal reviewed.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the decision, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a member of the court’s conservative wing, partially dissented.

How does this work? Did SCOTUS rule the way they did to send it to the lower courts? IANAL

Judge rules Trump administration can't use Alien Enemies Act to remove Venezuelan migrants in southern Texas
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rule ... ern-texas/

Washington — A federal judge ruled Thursday that the Trump administration cannot rely on the wartime Alien Enemies Act to detain or remove from the U.S. a group of Venezuelan migrants who are being held at a facility in southern Texas.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, appointed by President Trump in his first term, is a significant setback for the president as he seeks to crack down on illegal immigration into the U.S. Mr. Trump issued a proclamation in March invoking the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who he claims are members of the gang Tren de Aragua, but Rodriguez's order permanently blocks the administration from using the AEA and Mr. Trump's proclamation to detain, transfer or remove Venezuelan migrants who either live or are detained in the Southern District.

Rodriguez's order clarifies that his permanent injunction does not prohibit administration officials from moving forward with removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

"The question that this lawsuit presents is whether the president can utilize a specific statute, the AEA, to detain and remove Venezuelan aliens who are members of TdA," Rodriguez wrote. "As to that question, the historical record renders clear that the president's invocation of the AEA through the proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute's terms."

As a result of that finding, the judge said that the executive branch cannot use Mr. Trump's invocation of the AEA through his proclamation to detain or deport the Venezuelan migrants in southern Texas.

The Trump administration, Rodriguez wrote in a 36-page opinion, does "not possess the lawful authority under the AEA, and based on the proclamation, to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country." The decision is likely to be appealed.

"The court ruled that the president lacks authority simply to declare that there's been an invasion of the U.S. and then invoke an 18th Century wartime authority during peacetime," Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who argued on behalf of the Venezuelan migrants, said in a statement. "Congress never meant for this law to be used in this manner and the court correctly ruled that the president's actions are subject to judicial scrutiny."

[XtremeJibber2001]

I'm pretty sure Trump couldn't hold the White House with a single platoon. Also, apples, meet oranges. You're talking about lieutenants in a combat theater. I'm talking about general officers who've spent 30 years defending something they believe in being asked to throw that away to support a guy they don't even like.

But even in your example - the pilot came in and tried to thwart what he saw were illegal actions. You don't think that would happen all up and down the line if a POTUS tried to seize power with the military?

You're not wrong, but history and human behavior shows otherwise. Especially when orders come in a climate of confusion, fear or perceived legitimacy like they would in my earlier fictitious example.

While the pilot intervened, MOST the chain of command followed the illegal order, looked the other way, or covered it up. The cover up and/or failure to act included senior officers - captains, majors, generals, etc. Take a look at Major General Samuel Koster.

If the sitting POTUS gives an illegal order the military's default is to obey unless there's explicit clarity that it's not legal. As we've seen with Trump thus far, legal clarity does not come quickly. Just look at the US National Guard confusion surrounding January 6 ... National Guard support was requested at 1:49 PM and wasn't officially authorized until after 3 PM. National Guard troops didn't arrive until 5:45 PM and by then everyone had been evacuated and Capitol Police had begun to retake control.

The fear of insubordination, loyalty to the chain of command, or belief that someone else will push back first can make things really messy. Yes, even for officers.

Some will resist, yes. Assuming mass refusal across the board under stress, political pressure, and ambiguity underestimates human behavior.

[asher2789]

I'm pretty sure Trump couldn't hold the White House with a single platoon. Also, apples, meet oranges. You're talking about lieutenants in a combat theater. I'm talking about general officers who've spent 30 years defending something they believe in being asked to throw that away to support a guy they don't even like.

But even in your example - the pilot came in and tried to thwart what he saw were illegal actions. You don't think that would happen all up and down the line if a POTUS tried to seize power with the military?

shelves are expected to go empty this summer based on current shipping data, due to trumps batsh!t crazy tariffs. if this pans out as i expect it to, there will be rioting in the streets. imagine black friday sales pre internet... but with todays political instability and complete breakdown of societal trust post covid. were people not getting into fistfights at the grocery store over toilet paper last go around in supply chain woes? and that assumes that empty shelves will be our biggest problem. the job losses and recession that are about to hit are certainly going to push people into the streets with plenty of time on their hands to protest. the second theres a major protest against him hes going to put the military in the streets. illegally, and with no one stopping him. his brown shirts and paramilitary people will round up protest leaders of the left. liberals will cave. authoritarian fascist regime complete.

we dont need to be involved in a war in a foreign country, the economic shock we are about to face will bring the war right here. even if he wakes up tomorrow and decides that tariffs are actually not a great idea, the damage is all but done. theres a lag time. i expect this summer if going to be really hot.... especially if combined with the continued attack on civil liberties. the BLM protests of 2020 will look quaint in comparison.

people i know who generally go golfing right around now are going to a protest on saturday. well to do vermonters. hes hit a nerve in people and tempers are only going to continue to flare until some match finally lights all the tinder piling up over the decades of political mismanagement.

[Skid Mark]

20250501_135811.jpg (119.6 KiB) Viewed 93 times

[asher2789]

20250501_135811.jpg

you think youre funny but your inadvertent comparison between the christian nationalists who back trump and the muslim fundamentalists is more on the nose than youd ever like to admit. it took 3 years for iran to go from mini skirts to burqas and christian yall queda would love to make that happen here only instead of burqas, trad wife modesty, forced marriage for incels, and strict gender roles. theyre coming for trans and queer people first but eventually theyll come for no fault divorce and pornography too. the civil rights won by the queers are afforded to the straights as well for the privacy of whatever they do in their bedrooms.

as for killing the gays and reinstating slavery, i wonder how Andry José Hernández Romero is doing in el salvador?

[Skid Mark]

20250501_135811.jpg

you think youre funny but your inadvertent comparison between the christian nationalists who back trump and the muslim fundamentalists is more on the nose than youd ever like to admit. it took 3 years for iran to go from mini skirts to burqas and christian yall queda would love to make that happen here only instead of burqas, trad wife modesty, forced marriage for incels, and strict gender roles. theyre coming for trans and queer people first but eventually theyll come for no fault divorce and pornography too. the civil rights won by the queers are afforded to the straights as well for the privacy of whatever they do in their bedrooms.

as for killing the gays and reinstating slavery, i wonder how Andry José Hernández Romero is doing in el salvador?

Go make yourself a hat.

[easyrider16]

How does this work? Did SCOTUS rule the way they did to send it to the lower courts? IANAL

I believe SCOTUS didn't actually rule on the merits of whether the Alien Enemies Act can be used as Trump's team is using it. Rather, their rulings are based on hypertechnical procedural issues - namely that the lower court couldn't issue the temporary restraining order sought by the detainees but the detainees could seek habeas corpus relief. This most recent trial court decision rules on the substance of the Alien Enemies Act and whether it can be used as Trump is using it. Trump's people will appeal it and that will allow an actual substantive decision from SCOTUS on the issue.

In theory, SCOTUS can only rule on issues addressed in the lower court and brought before them by one of the parties, even though they often ignore this rule when they feel like it. In this case, you've got a deeply divided court. Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas are ready to give Trump whatever he asks for. Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts are a little more center-right and I think they are skeptical of some of Trump's more aggressive policies. And Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor are deeply opposed to what the administration is doing. So with that kind of divide, they're not likely to go beyond the specific issues in front of them and are more inclined to allow the lower court to fully develop the case first.

One of the more annoying things about how this administration talks about the courts is when they talk about rogue lower court judges trying to block their actions. But the reality is the only way a case gets to the Supreme Court is by first going in front of a lower court judge, who makes a ruling, that then gets appealed and reviewed by SCOTUS. So these aren't rogue judges. This is just how the system works. The real problem is that Trump's administration is trying to stretch the law in ways that have never been tested, and thus lower court judges have no real guide and feel free to rule however they think is fair.

[easyrider16]

Delving a bit more into this April 7 SCOTUS decision - the relationships among the judges are starting to seem pretty acrimonious. The main opinion refers to the dissenting opinions derisively, saying, "For all the rhetoric of the dissents..."

Sotomayor's dissenting opinions includes this rhetoric:

The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law. That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this. I respectfully dissent.

Jackson's dissent includes this rhetoric:

With more and more of our most significant rulings taking place in the shadows of our emergency docket, today’s Court leaves less and less of a trace. But make no mistake: We are just as wrong now as we have been in the past, with similarly devastating consequences. It just seems we are now less willing to face it.

Also note that Barrett is among those dissenting. She's really starting to move toward the middle on some of these issues.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 1_2c83.pdf

[asher2789]

20250501_135811.jpg

you think youre funny but your inadvertent comparison between the christian nationalists who back trump and the muslim fundamentalists is more on the nose than youd ever like to admit. it took 3 years for iran to go from mini skirts to burqas and christian yall queda would love to make that happen here only instead of burqas, trad wife modesty, forced marriage for incels, and strict gender roles. theyre coming for trans and queer people first but eventually theyll come for no fault divorce and pornography too. the civil rights won by the queers are afforded to the straights as well for the privacy of whatever they do in their bedrooms.

as for killing the gays and reinstating slavery, i wonder how Andry José Hernández Romero is doing in el salvador?

Go make yourself a hat.

answer me how the gay hairdresser ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINAL!!!! is doing in el salvador? you fascists are cheering it on you sick freaks.

go hand your photo id over to pornhub for your safety.