- Joined
- Jan 26, 2025
- Messages
- 2,783
- Reaction score
- 706
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
If my comment is "absurdist theorizing" yours is simple (and I mean that in all possible ways) partisan politics.Absurdist theorizing in the reality of the many willfully contempt actions taken by the admin in violation of court orders from Garcia to NIH funding. The place is burning down while you say the fireplace has embers. This is not some single play by the admin but a total assault on all post WWII institutions, save the DoD. Don has violated the oath so many times it is not funny, but this is all on top of the fact that he keeps using the same ploy with his base. He promised to deport millions, now he can't get there without a massive police state action AND the crushing of agriculture, big and small, so he is TACOing on the cheap labor assaults.....except in CA where he has to maintain the example....as long as the courts allow....as long as he follows the courts.
No, the enforcement is not temporary. But the drop in tourism is. As people in other countries see America getting safer, the present small drop in tourism will recover quite nicely.But the enforcement is not temporary, unless you are TACOing....again
So am I.I'm talking about international tourism
Why would I ask someone else to explain what you meant in your statement?
No, I've read the whole discussion, it was your statement that didn't make any sense.
Foreign travelers are not going to just accept that they might not be admitted into the US because they made a critical statement about a politician, or risk being arbitrarily detained by CBP when entering the country; tourists will spend their money visiting some other country that doesn't present the same risk or frustration.
Once a tourist is turned off from visiting somewhere and decides to travel elsewhere, that revenue may never come back. Three and a half more years of tRump may cripple tourism for far longer than you think.
the irony....If my comment is "absurdist theorizing" yours is simple (and I mean that in all possible ways) partisan politics.
Raygunite neocons cheer on the trumper fascistsWhat's "burning down" are the ultra-left gains in the bureaucracy
Those that need strongmen say shit like this, we showed up on No Kings day, your lot knows what the results have been and will be going forward.and the Democrat Party.
We are all losing, except for the fascists....butIt must hurt to be part of such a losing situation.
You're quite a bit behind on the discussion. A brief update:So you haven’t read any of the posts here where various professionals have been erroneously detained/deported? Os seen the drop in tourism out of fear of same?
No, if the enforcement remains, if the atmosphere remains, you will not see a "nice" recovery before the end of this term, whatever bullshit standard you use.No, the enforcement is not temporary. But the drop in tourism is. As people in other countries see America getting safer, the present small drop in tourism will recover quite nicely.
You think I read that nonsense?So am I.
You get an "F" on the subject.
Preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution also means not taking actions that violate the Constitution.No, it isn't. The oath reads,
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution requires enforcing the laws of the country that are passed under that Constitution. Trump enforces those laws, even if Democrats don't like it, with our immigration laws being a major focus today.
The single arbiter of what's legal under our Constitution, is the Supreme Court. Trump does what he believes is necessary to enforce those laws. Others react in one of two ways. They either rant, piss and moan because he doesn't cave in to what they want him to do, or they sue. Suing brings the dispute where it belongs so that the Constitutionality of the action or the law is confirmed or, if not confirmed, serves as a guide to the Legislative and Administrative branches to revise the law.
IOW, testing a law or an action doesn't violate the oath. By clarifying the law, it strengthens the Constitution.
Simple-minded buzz-word wasted space.Raygunite neocons cheer on the trumper fascists
It's about time we had a strong personality in the White House. Yeah, you showed up at the bidding of money interests that have you dancing in the streets to their tune. You can't even see when you're being used by people you don't know. The results of all that sign waving will be even more defections from support for the left as people see things like this:Those that need strongmen say shit like this, we showed up on No Kings day, your lot knows what the results have been and will be going forward.
I don't think you read anything.You think I read that nonsense?
"You shouldn't get angry at us fascist because you will make someone late for work"Simple-minded buzz-word wasted space.
It's about time we had a strong personality in the White House. Yeah, you showed up at the bidding of money interests that have you dancing in the streets to their tune. You can't even see when you're being used by people you don't know. The results of all that sign waving will be even more defections from support for the left as people see things like this:
This is the second time in the same convo. You don't learn, either.I don't think
you read anything.
"You shouldn't get angry at us fascist because you will make someone late for work"
All that assumes that the President takes on the role of deciding what's Constitutional. It's a very well-recognized practice to test laws in court, for the purpose of obtaining an authoritative decision on Constitutionality. I'm of the opinion that Trump believes he has the lawful authority to do what he does and, because of that, cites the authority in his E.O.'s. By doing so he has demonstrated his belief in the Constitutionality of his acts. It's then up to those who disagree to bring the question to the courts.Preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution also means not taking actions that violate the Constitution.
And while the SC is the final arbiter on Constitutionality it is not the only one. Presidents have a duty to not take actions that they suspect violate the Constitution or federal law. They can't just do things and hope the courts play ball. As
originally conceived the President's primary use of the veto was to veto legislation they believed
to be unconstitutional and in fact Washington did just that.
Of course that changed somewhat with Marbury v Madison but Presidents are still oathbound
to not act in unconstitutional ways.
Ummm. The fear is being detained/jailed/sent to the gulag by mistake as ICE tries to meet arbitrary quotas.You're quite a bit behind on the discussion. A brief update:
Some people have been detained by mistake, but - unfortunately - that's bound to happen when 10 or 15 million completely un-vetted people are allowed into the country and the task of removing them is so huge.
The drop in tourism is temporary. It'll pick up again as foreign tourists see that our country is a safer place to visit because we've started enforcing our laws.
That means something because ?????"You shouldn't get angry at us fascist because you will make someone late for work"
I have an issue with the interviewer making it a racial issue.
I didn't see it as a black-white issue but an issue of privilege over rights.
So she's going to be late for work. Shit happens
White HouseTrump policy has been to enrich himself and his cronies when they cooperate, Retired argues No Kings marchers serve monied interests.
He is artistic in being able to suspend logic that way, I'm always impressed.
yer bemused by yer own context.....amazing!That means something because ?????
Someone who can show a current, non-expired tourist visa don't need to fear that, as I think they'll come to realize.Ummm. The fear is being detained/jailed/sent to the gulag by mistake as ICE tries to meet arbitrary quotas.
Someone who can show a current, non-expired tourist visa don't need to fear that, as I think they'll come to realize.
No, I'm "bemused" by your erroneous thoughts of your own cleverness. What you posted had no meaning or value.yer bemused by yer own context.....amazing!
Really? When? How many times?Oh........
Yeah that's already been proven false.
....and so long as their social media posts do not conflict with current admin views.....and please unlock your phone and laptop thank you.Someone who can show a current, non-expired tourist visa don't need to fear that, as I think they'll come to realize.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?