Best of Trump

[67RModel]

9 hours ago, Truckcrazy said:

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1FPEd5uEyf/?mibextid=wwXIfr

yea that is a whole different can of worms. I’ve ready through the files quite a bit. Very problematic. That’s all I’ll say. 

[Joey Mack]

Honestly..  I wish Mr. Trump would stop those bad comments. He too has a time and a place for them.   

[kscarbel2]

The court ruled many of President Donald Trump's tariffs illegal, including "reciprocal" nation-level duties.

This week was a low point. The Supreme Court caused our country and president to lose a significant amount of face. When the need is just, the "U.S." Supreme Court should support the cause........support the "U.S." and president.

I worked around the world for decades. I observed most other countries charging import duties on US goods ranging from 20% to 40%. It was a polite way of keeping US goods out of their country markets. 

Meanwhile, we were only charging 2.5% on the same category of goods they imported into the US.

It's interesting that throughout decades of Republican and Democrat presidents, and both Republican and Democrat-controlled houses and senates, NONE of them ever spoke about it, much less made any effort to correct it.

But here comes President Trump, blatantly pointing out this obviously and grossly unfair situation.......and he grabs the bull by the horns and corrects the situation in record time. All right......no wrong. A five year old would tell you reciprocal tariffs is a balanced and fair way of managing trade. Whatever percentage another country charges, we match it. No more, but no less.

And now the Supreme Court says no, no, no. We need to put things back to the (grossly unequal) way they were.

By ruling against "reciprocal" nation-level duties, the Supreme Court ruled against a level playing field for US companies in the global market. The Supreme Court is representing the best interest of the world's foreign aggressors who want to profit from the US market but ensure U.S. companies can not succeed in their markets. 

I'm putting this at the very top of my list of things that don't add up.

I once said, the only way to fix the U.S. to a meaningful extent in a 4-year time period of time would be to fully empower a capable president. The Supreme Court's action proves that.

[Joey Mack]

Here we go again... a 21 year old male is shot and killed at Mara-Lago... He was armed.  Lets see how this plays out...

[Geoff Weeks]

16 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

The court ruled many of President Donald Trump's tariffs illegal, including "reciprocal" nation-level duties.

 

Court never said that. They said the President alone can't make that decision. He most certainly can go to congress and they together can enact those tariffs if they think it is in the US interest. 

Once again, it is separation of powers that this admin can't seam to understand.

[kscarbel2]

16 minutes ago, Joey Mack said:

Here we go again... a 21 year old male is shot and killed at Mara-Lago... He was armed.  Lets see how this plays out...

Austin Tucker Martin, 21, drove 700 miles from North Carolina. Holding a shotgun and gasoline can, he tried to enter Mara-Lago at 1.30am on Sunday.  Martin drove through the north gate of Mar-a-Lago as another vehicle was exiting.

Two Secret Service agents and one Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office deputy  ordered him to drop the gun and can. He put down the can but raised his gun into shooting position, prompting police to fire.

[kscarbel2]

10 minutes ago, Geoff Weeks said:

Court never said that. They said the President alone can't make that decision. He most certainly can go to congress and they together can enact those tariffs if they think it is in the US interest. 

Once again, it is separation of powers that this admin can't seam to understand.

Yes it did. 

When Congress, and previous presidents, have failed to address an appalling decades-long problem before the American people, and to the detriment of the American people, President Trump has no choice but to confront the problem alone.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

[Geoff Weeks]

CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 24–1287. Argued November 5, 2025—Decided February 20, 2026*
The question presented is whether the International Emergency Eco-
nomic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs.

Right at the start of the opinion. Congress can impose tariffs not the president.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Geoff Weeks

[67RModel]

I don’t get why the President didn't codify the tariffs into the “One Big Beautiful Bill” but instead chose a haphazard path that was doomed from the start. He had the political system by the balls a year ago and squandered it IMO.

Supreme Court got it right. I’m not a constitutional scholar but from the looks of it it’s pretty straight forward. The Constitution is quite clear on which entity can impose tariffs.

now the big India trade deal is in limbo and probably dead at this point…..

[Geoff Weeks]

4 minutes ago, 67RModel said:

I don’t get why the President didn't codify the tariffs into the “One Big Beautiful Bill” but instead chose a haphazard path that was doomed from the start. He had the political system by the balls a year ago and squandered it IMO.

Supreme Court got it right. I’m not a constitutional scholar but from the looks of it it’s pretty straight forward. The Constitution is quite clear on which entity can impose tariffs.

now the big India trade deal is in limbo and probably dead at this point…..

To do so would have required buy in from congress and the rates would have to be in the bill. He wanted to threaten and then back down when other countries reacted.  

Unlikely he would get all republicans never mind any democrats to go along with it. So it would not happen. He is being told he is not "king" and can not claim a false emergency to dictate his desires. 

 Like the "fake" emergency telling private electrical generators that they have to keep old coal plants "operational". There has to be an emergency for real, not just in his mind.

[mechohaulic]

have to admit I don't follow politics ; might as well read a Donald duck nursery book. what im not understanding is how last week ONE person carrying a gun on white house property made breaking news. yet when hundreds walked/ climbed all over white house property ; it wasn't filmed till they were climbing walls and inside!! where was security ??

[67RModel]

2 minutes ago, Geoff Weeks said:

To do so would have required buy in from congress and the rates would have to be in the bill. He wanted to threaten and then back down when other countries reacted.  

Unlikely he would get all republicans never mind any democrats to go along with it. So it would not happen. He is being told he is not "king" and can not claim a false emergency to dictate his desires. 

 Like the "fake" emergency telling private electrical generators that they have to keep old coal plants "operational". There has to be an emergency for real, not just in his mind.

Yea I get it but I guess I was meaning more along the lines of reciprocity. Basically saying “the USA will not impose tariffs on any country unless other countries impose them first at which point the USA will impose the exact same tariff on them. As a baseline, starting now, all tariffs will be adjusted up or down to match what any other nation has imposed on USA”. Something like that to start. Then with some type of language to quickly bring to the floor and vote on a long term deal with another nation should such a deal be negotiated.  What we got on “liberation day” (😂) was preposterous to  say the least.

[67RModel]

11 minutes ago, mechohaulic said:

have to admit I don't follow politics ; might as well read a Donald duck nursery book. what im not understanding is how last week ONE person carrying a gun on white house property made breaking news. yet when hundreds walked/ climbed all over white house property ; it wasn't filmed till they were climbing walls and inside!! where was security ??

I assume you mean January 6, 2021? Those folks breached and entered the US Capitol Building not the whitehouse. If so where were you living during the first half of 2021? lol. It was nonstop coverage, conspiracy theories, trials, hearings, witnesses. The works. A little something for everyone. 

[tjc transport]

34 minutes ago, 67RModel said:

I don’t get why the President didn't codify the tariffs into the “One Big Beautiful Bill” but instead chose a haphazard path that was doomed from the start. He had the political system by the balls a year ago and squandered it IMO.

Supreme Court got it right. I’m not a constitutional scholar but from the looks of it it’s pretty straight forward. The Constitution is quite clear on which entity can impose tariffs.

now the big India trade deal is in limbo and probably dead at this point…..

Because the demonrats never would have agreed to it if the tariffs wording was in it.

[67RModel]

7 minutes ago, tjc transport said:

Because the demonrats never would have agreed to it if the tariffs wording was in it.

He didn’t need them too. Thats the point. 

[tjc transport]

No, I mean t they never would have voted yes to the big bill. 

[67RModel]

13 minutes ago, tjc transport said:

No, I mean t they never would have voted yes to the big bill. 

Not a single democrat voted yes to and it passed.