Trump​ ❤️ Tariffs

[Big Blitz]

18 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Maybe but hopefully this ruling eventually leads to to the Supreme Court where they'll rule it unconstitutional.  Similar to the student loan forgiveness executive orders by Biden.  I doubt Congress has the guts to do anything.

 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

No no no no.  In no way should we say “follow the trillions of dollars at stake for multinationals when it comes to this group of extremely well meaning judges.”

 

 

 

[Doc Brown]

19 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

Exactly

[Mikie2times]

1 hour ago, Big Blitz said:

No no no no.  In no way should we say “follow the trillions of dollars at stake for multinationals when it comes to this group of extremely well meaning judges.”

 

 

 

One judge was put in under Reagan, one Obama, and one Trump. 

[Big Blitz]

Ummmm…….

 

 

“The reason it’s a surprise is that if you look at past cases where plaintiffs have tried to challenge the presidential use of extraordinary authority under various laws, the plaintiffs have always lost against the government,” Hufbauer said in an interview with CNN.

 

“All the president had to do was say, ‘national security,’ or ‘national emergency.’ Those are magic words.”

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/28/business/us-court-blocks-trumps-tariffs
 

 

Only for forcing you to stay 6 feet apart.  
 

Or get an experimental vaccine where we won’t reveal the deadly side effects we were informed of.  Keep that secret.  National emergency and all that.  
 

 

These words no longer apply when an anti Uni Party President is in office.  
 

 

 

[Doc Brown]

15 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

Ummmm…….

 

 

“The reason it’s a surprise is that if you look at past cases where plaintiffs have tried to challenge the presidential use of extraordinary authority under various laws, the plaintiffs have always lost against the government,” Hufbauer said in an interview with CNN.

 

“All the president had to do was say, ‘national security,’ or ‘national emergency.’ Those are magic words.”

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/28/business/us-court-blocks-trumps-tariffs
 

 

Only for forcing you to stay 6 feet apart.  
 

Or get an experimental vaccine where we won’t reveal the deadly side effects we were informed of.  Keep that secret.  National emergency and all that.  
 

 

These words no longer apply when an anti Uni Party President is in office.  
 

 

 

You're missing the point.  If you despise what Obama and Biden did under executive orders thinking they shouldn't have that much power then you are an absolute hypocrite if you approve of what Trump is doing with tariffs.  Congress has power of the purse.  Period.  Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the constitution.  

[Doc Brown]

51 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

One judge was put in under Reagan, one Obama, and one Trump. 

It doesn't matter.  Any conservative that remains consistent in their beliefs is shunned right now by the party.  You have a few moderate senators (Murkowski and Collins) and Rand Paul (libertarian) speak out against them who actually voted against a bill doomed to fail preventing Trump's tariffs on Canada.  None of them really have to worry about re-election.

[Niagara Bill]

This may be the test, democracy vs dictatorship. Will federal agencies follow the rule of law and the courts or the actions of the administration. 

The world awaits the outcome.

[Big Blitz]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

You're missing the point.  If you despise what Obama and Biden did under executive orders thinking they shouldn't have that much power then you are an absolute hypocrite if you approve of what Trump is doing with tariffs.  Congress has power of the purse.  Period.  Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the constitution.  

 

Couldn’t be more clear:
 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

You're missing the point.  If you despise what Obama and Biden did under executive orders thinking they shouldn't have that much power then you are an absolute hypocrite if you approve of what Trump is doing with tariffs.  Congress has power of the purse.  Period.  Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the constitution.  

The problem with this line of thinking is that we can point to these examples (Obama and Biden) which reveal how government actually works in practice.  How do we know this?  Well, see Obama and Biden.  Step back a bit further and we can look at the actions of the DOJ and special counsel and know that the government has allowable tolerance on the handling of national security (HRC) and holding, dissemination of classified material (Biden), and dealing with hostile foreign nationals attempting to derail free and fair elections (Clinton-Steele).  We know that transparency and light in the darkness is the ideal, but we also know that the ideal is not the standard. 
 

If we look at your post, @Andy1 gives you a thumbs up for your post on hypocrisy, but we’re left to wonder why he would cast his lot with a Biden presidency when he was a critical advocate and co-conspirator in Obama’s actions? 
 

I think it’s because we recognize that government actually operates in ways contrary to the way it should.  That’s the norm. That’s how it’s done.  That’s the standard.  

[Roundybout]

8 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Couldn’t be more clear:
 

 

 

 

 

Using Smoot-Hawley to say Trump has authority to do this is misleading, at best, and incredibly ignorant, at worst. 

 

For one, SH involved tariffs passed by the HOUSE, not by the President. 

 

For another, it was such an economic poison pill that a new liberal trade bill was passed in 1934 and effectively nullified SH. 

 

Also, the Federal Trade Act of 1974 does not give the President authority to drop sweeping tariffs, it allows him to create trade deals that Congress can pass quickly. 

[Big Blitz]

2 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

 

Using Smoot-Hawley to say Trump has authority to do this is misleading, at best, and incredibly ignorant, at worst. 

 

For one, SH involved tariffs passed by the HOUSE, not by the President. 

 

For another, it was such an economic poison pill that a new liberal trade bill was passed in 1934 and effectively nullified SH. 

 

Also, the Federal Trade Act of 1974 does not give the President authority to drop sweeping tariffs, it allows him to create trade deals that Congress can pass quickly. 

 

 

 

 

Now, if you want to argue the National Security threat I’m all ears - explain the Court siding with China.  Them doing so basically says this isn’t about law.  It’s lawfare.  

 

 

 

 

And, since we now want to go back to original intent - I sure hope the SCOTUS applies this to the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship.  

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Ha, Ha, Ha ,Ha!

The emperor has no clothes.

[Big Blitz]

Imagine siding with China

 

 

 

[Niagara Bill]

Just now, Big Blitz said:

Imagine siding with China

 

 

 

I hope you are not insulted, but you do realize that everyone knows you are a paid schill...and no one pays any attention to the reams of info you copy and paste. 

[Albwan]

Just now, Niagara Bill said:

I hope you are not insulted, but you do realize that everyone knows you are a paid schill...and no one pays any attention to the reams of info you copy and paste. 

Ditto, clown

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said:

This may be the test, democracy vs dictatorship. Will federal agencies follow the rule of law and the courts or the actions of the administration. 

The world awaits the outcome.

It is a democracy. The president was elected by the voters winning the required electoral votes and also the popular vote. And unlike other "democracies" no candidate was disqualified like in Romania  nor was any party outlawed like they're looking to do in Germany because the ruling powers were threatened so they resort to restricting the options presented to the voters to retain power. Or punish free speech like the UK.

So our democracy works pretty well. Anyone looking for potential dictatorships should cast their gaze to Europe.

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 01:02 PM by All_Pro_Bills

[Niagara Bill]

15 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

It is a democracy. The president was elected by the voters winning the required electoral votes and also the popular vote. And unlike other "democracies" no candidate was disqualified like in Romania  nor was any party outlawed like they're looking to do in Germany because the ruling powers were threatened so they resort to restricting the options presented to the voters to retain power. Or punish free speech like the UK.

So our democracy works pretty well. Anyone looking for potential dictatorships should cast their gaze to Europe.

 

 

 

At this point in history you are 100% correct. And I hope you always are.

But, the direction has been strange and concerning. 

I just mention, that this point and ruling could be very telling. 

There is no way of ignoring the administrations criticism of the judiciary to this point. 

At the very least, the administration will have to openly prove the extreme need for emergency measures against the entire world. 

The checks and balances that have made the US the envy of the world are about to be tested. Here's hoping they stay in place.

[Big Blitz]

12 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

 

At the very least, the administration will have to openly prove the extreme need for emergency measures against the entire world. 

 

Because this ***t isn’t sustainable.   

 

This is the American dream……..

[Joe Ferguson forever]

8 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

Because this ***t isn’t sustainable.   

 

This is the American dream……..

that justifies destroying democracy?  perhaps we should vote on that.  And we will nov 26 if trump doesn't cancel elections.