ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,569 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
9 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
That’s some pretty impressive flopping around. Bottom line is that you couldn’t have been more wrong. But you were only wrong because of MAGA. Otherwise, you would’ve been right. Right?
good lord. Do you remember right after the election you put up a post whining about people dunking on your sort and that it was gross? That was truly embarrassing. If you really want to know why the dunking happened, just go back and reread your posts in this thread. Question answered.
Do you believe ending asylum, revoking legal status, and chasing farmworkers away from the fields is a solution?
-
4 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
You said the only way to control the influx at the border was with a new law. I feel like you were wrong about that. Were you?
I was working under the incorrect assumption that people actually meant what they said when they said they wanted people to come here legally. Shutting down the border while allowing that to happen would require additional funding for immigration courts, which requires a passing a law.
If you just want to shut the whole thing down, legal immigrants be damned, then no I guess you don't.
Seems like a dumb idea, but I was absolutely wrong in believing that MAGA meant what they said. Won't do it again.
-
17 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
Makes you wonder why the one court stayed the ruling. Sounds like a slam dunk according to you. I’m sure if the Supreme Court says otherwise you’ll have an explanation for why you are right anyway. Looking forward to it.
If you ever have any time, maybe you could tell us all why you were right with your thoughts about the border situation. Most of your prior posts on the topic make it seem like you couldn’t have been more wrong, but I’m sure there’s an explanation.
Courts routinely stay rulings when there's an appeal. I think it's fine to have your own opinion instead of waiting to be told what to think but YMMV.
I'll admit it. I did not think that the people who said they only wanted to go after criminals would view going after non-criminals, revoking legal status for people who did things the right way to come here, locking up and deporting citizens, chasing workers off of farms, and going after kids with cancer as a solution.
I thought that the people who were so adamant that they wanted people to come here legally actually meant it instead of using it as a shield to hide their desire to stop anyone who doesn't meet their definition of "American" from entering. If the goal was just lawlessness, terror, and going after brown people, then yeah, you don't need Congress.
17 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:So the economy is good yes or no? You can stop squirming whenever.
Gotta love the idiocy of asking a question to avoid answering a question and then being a weirdo when your obvious distraction tactic failed.
Still scared of admitting Dear Leader may have broken the law, huh?
-
5 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:
So the economy is doing good......thanks!
The nice thing about realizing that a foundational tenet of MAGA is not knowing how anything works is that they love proving you right.
4 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:The ruling of illegality had been stayed, has it not? The Supreme Court will be weighing in later this year, correct? I’m going to wait and see what they say. At least what 8/9 say. We already know how one justice will rule. Do you think that’s ok or should I get riled up because that’s what you are doing? Either way.
It's fairly straightforwardly illegal by the current understanding of IEEPA. Even to the extent that Leonard Leo and the Kochs are suing because the tariffs are illegal. It's fine to have an opinion that Dear Leader might be wrong in one specific thing. He's probably not going to come for you.
But I agree that Alito, and likely Thomas, would find some way to change the meaning of the text in favor of the administration since "originalist" jurisprudence is basically just Calvinball at this point.
-
Unable to answer a simple question as it may lead to cognitive dissonance of recognizing that Dear Leader may have broken the law, the MAGA is observed resorting to its tried and true tactic of whataboutism: distracting from the question at hand to redirect the conversation to something completely unrelated, hoping that nobody will notice its cowardice.
-
Any of the “law and order” MAGA types willing to admit that the tariffs are illegal?
Or is that whole “law and order” thing more of pick and choose sorta deal?
Trump’s plans to impose 50% tariffs on Brazil Highlights Illegal and Harmful nature of his policyCourt strikes down most of Trump's tariffs, ruling them illegal
-
On 7/9/2025 at 8:42 PM, Homelander said:
“Propaganda […] often operates through inflammatory speech, stirring hostility and manipulating emotions, and displacing reasoned public debate with fear and division.”
-
26 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I wasn’t talking about questions on apples v oranges, and of course you know that. It’s all good though, sometimes people surprise you. Have a good night.
I mean, if you’re comparing the McCabe prosecution to the Smith ones (which you did), you absolutely were. -
6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Imagine, politics and legal matters entwining for the first time in the history of the world. All I can tell you is you put Jack Smith on this latest investigation, it might lead to a Comey Brennan ‘28 ticket. Not because of legal shortcomings but because of…well, you know.
Beyond that, it seems that some of you people are coming a bit unglued and offering some weird comments that didn’t come up when Biden was beating up Medicare and wandering off at summits. Where are your personal standards? Is that how you carry yourself at work when you disagree or have an issue with an admin assistant or paralegal? You accuse them of licking boots? When the headset fails in the middle of a phone call with an important client, are you calling the customer service line and demanding they lick your Gucci loafers?
Pull it together.
Frankly, I would question someone if they came to me arguing that Apples = Oranges. -
38 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Or the Jack Smith prosecution. Someone’s always eating something, I guess.
Smith secured indictments and the prosecutions were shut down not because of legal shortcomings but because of politics.
The prosecutions of McCabe couldn’t even get indictments. They were just a stunt for the ignorant.
But if boots need to be licked, good to know you’ve got it covered.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I imagine this will be about as successful as the prosecution of Andrew McCabe.
But the usual crowd will eat it up for sure
-
Making Grok less woke resulted in it going full on Nazi and fantasizing about rape?
A bit on the nose, but MAGA never has been much for subtlety.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
Sorry I missed that.
I was just going over how this would apply to all gun owners and manufacturers.
That's a good thought exercise.
Imagine Congress passed a law that nobody was allowed to own a gun unless they were a registered member of a state-regulated militia. All gunowners who did not meet this standard were to turn over their guns which would then be melted down.
The NRA (and others) would sue, saying that this law violated the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. They would also likely ask the court to enjoin the enforcement of this law until the constitutionality was resolved.
I think it's more than reasonable for the court to grant that injunction. Confiscating and destroying people's property would cause harm that wouldn't be easily reversed should the law later be found to be unconstitutional. Therefore, preventing the enforcement of the law until the constitutional issue is resolved makes a lot of sense.
Same in the case you provided: there is a suit alleging a provision of the law is unconstitutional (violating the prohibition of bills of attainder as opposed to 2nd Amendment violation) so the court is preventing enforcement of that specific provision until it can address the constitutional issue.
Seems incredibly reasonable to me. Not a deep state thing, just a logical way to work through the issue.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
What individual was punished or jailed?
The allegation is that a section of the bill is written to specifically target Planned Parenthood in violation of the Constitution's prohibition of bills of attainder.
You can read the filing here.
-
6 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
That Trump is punishing them.
People will die.
Thus, their rights are being violated.
No one said it couldn’t exist and continue doing the work of baby killing.
They should no longer count on tax payer dollars to do so.
Wrong (but nobody is surprised at this).
They claim that the provisions are constructed as a bill of attainder.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Big Blitz said:
I know where the power of the purse belongs thank you.
The same judge that tried to block Trumps deportation order is saying a group having its funding cut by Congress could be a violation of their constitutional rights via a TRO.
So in addition to having your Democrat leaders calling for violence, they continue to try and use the courts to disrupt the agenda that has wiped Obama’s existence from the planet.
It’s not surprising at all that you think Trump can be an autocrat by activist judges cannot.
There was ZERO legal rationale for her TRO. The complaint was essentially “Trump can’t do this.” He didn’t. Congress did. That’s a judicial coup.
What is the claim being made by the plaintiffs in the case?53 minutes ago, Homelander said:Cope
You're shocked the same ‘deep state’ you think is all-powerful somehow can’t manage to take down the guy they allegedly hate most? Sounds less like a conspiracy and more like you realizing the grift doesn’t come with closure.
Epstein’s black book wasn’t buried by the ‘bureaucracy’ it was buried by the people you worship.
and seethe.
“Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Big Blitz said:
We don’t have answers.
But we won’t be told we’ve been scammed by a bunch of morons that supported a corpse/Auto Pen “presidency” that promptly quit because reasons was replaced by a drunk that got no votes did zero interviews for 2 months and you promptly obeyed all of it by voting for the drunk.
We're in very good hands here
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
This coming from the guy who believes that laws supersede the Constitution…-
1
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
Who’s leader was set up to be taken down by his predecessor but let’s just ignore that.
Yes within the GOP is filth. Connected to the MIC and they hate Trump because …… ???
Im sure it’s only bc he’s an *** hole.
Hey, quick question for you: do laws supersede the constitution or does the constitution supersede laws?-
1
-
-
MAGA actually understand the law and Constitution challenge (impossible)
-
4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Well, it most certainly caused the markets to go down more than 10%, which is nothing to sneeze at.
And then the Trump TACO play most certainly caused it to rebound.
And now we go again.
Personally, I wonder how much of what stability the market has shown is due to investors not believing we’d be stupid enough to keep doing this.-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
Yes.
Government can fund it. It can defund it.
Really not beating the allegations, huh? -
27 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
Maybe follow the law and do it the right way?
It’s a temporary injunction lasting just 14 days while the court determines if the law is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.Without weighing in on the merits of the claim, there are two important things that make sense here unless you’re in the cult:
1. The Constitution prevails over laws
2. Temporarily pausing the enforcement of a provision of a law for two weeks to determine if the provision is unconstitutional makes more sense than allowing enforcement that causes permanent harm even if the provision is later determined to be unconstitutional.
Or, you know, hurr durr deep state or whatever.
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
yalll were pretty supportive when he was funding the conman...I think there's an entire topic glorifying him. Fickle, stupid maga's...
We have always been at war with Eastasia-
1
-
-
Anyone pushing a third party without first dismantling the First Past the Post system is either unserious or a grifter.
-
1
-
Trump ❤️ Tariffs
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
They got the border under control by ending asylum, revoking legal status, and chasing workers off farms. And you are saying that's not a solution, but also I was wrong for saying that's not a solution?
...what do you think actually happened to shut down the border?