I think he's playing a character, not that that is any better than being earnest about being a sudden fan boy of the technocrats.
He scrubbed his own post history in concert with taking on a discount troll/right-wing comedian persona.
Federal judge blocks dismantling of USAID, saying it "likely violated" the Constitution
- Thread starter noStemsnoSTICKS
- Start date
I think he's playing a character, not that that is any better than being earnest about being a sudden fan boy of the technocrats.
He scrubbed his own post history in concert with taking on a discount troll/right-wing comedian persona.
Still loving to post weirdo pictures of men and little boys on the internet I see. Yuch! Is your phone sticky when you do it? I've been told sexual abusers phones are often sticky.
Let's not forget, he used a photo of a naked teenage boy for his avatar the first couple of years on this platform.
Yeah Rico has proven over and over again he loves himself some of that sexual abuse, pictures of little boys, pictures of men on the internet. Weirdo.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
That line is verbatim.
So President Musk?
Wasn't there a parody poster at one time... Phrenomonally fantastic? I don't remember this @Phenomenally Frantastic ever being anti-Trump but I could be wrong.
He was at the very least, not all-in with any particular political movement. His shtick since Musk/Trump/Rogan joined forces gas been pretty obviously contrived.
“In the 1867 case *Mississippi v. Johnson*, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a challenge brought by the state of Mississippi against President Andrew Johnson. Mississippi sought an injunction to prevent Johnson from enforcing the Reconstruction Acts, which were passed by Congress to reorganize the Southern states after the Civil War. Mississippi argued that these acts were unconstitutional and that the president’s enforcement of them infringed on state sovereignty.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, declined to issue the injunction. The Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to restrain the president in the exercise of his executive powers. The decision hinged on the separation of powers doctrine: the judiciary could not interfere with the discretionary actions of the executive branch. The Court held that the president’s duty to execute laws, such as the Reconstruction Acts, was a political function, not subject to judicial control unless it involved a specific, ministerial act mandated by law (which this did not).
In essence, the ruling established that the Supreme Court could not compel or prohibit the president from performing constitutional duties tied to executive discretion, reinforcing the limits of judicial authority over the executive branch. The case remains a key precedent in defining the boundaries of judicial review and executive power.”
Good for them, I know for a fact all the money we as taxpayers poured into African countries resulted in a net zero gain of anything for the U.S.
Idiots see USAID as throwing money to other countries for stupid reasons.
Anyone with a brain realizes it’s super cheap national/world security.
Sergeant in Afghanistan was quoted in a piece I'd posted that it was USAID that kept his troops safe, because they knew all the locals and gained their trust so his guys didn't get targeted by them.
China call have all the 3rd world, AIDS infested regions they want.
Save the handout money normally going to these ungrateful countries for American citizens in need.
And we're all paying for your president's liberation of America. Thanks.
Vietnams minimum wage, depending on providence, is anywhere from 198 dollar a month to 125 dollars a month. They spend 48 hours a week making shoes that cost Nike 10 bucks to make so Nike can sell them for 200 each and the ceo can own jets.
Nike has lost millions or billions off this, finally being caught for this exploiting. They are looking at closing 125 factories in Vietnam now.
What side of the argument would you like to stand on before we go further?
You have shown you have no credibility to argue any side of anything.
So you have chosen to "do nothing" as one might say?
You don't have an argument because at the end of the day you guys have to admit you would rather have cheap shit made by a 10 year old Chinese kid than hope Trump gets it right.
Okay. Let's say Nike brings all manufacturing back to the US. After procuring the land, designing and building the plant, operate that plant, hire and train people at union wages and distribute the products to stores, those $200 shoes will be $500. You bitched and whined constantly about inflation during Biden's term. Suddenly you're okay with it exponentially because your guy is causing it.
There are reasons manufacturing left the US and none of those reasons have changed. To think they have is foolishness being propagated by foolish people.
Aren't you guys the "people in corporate America take home to much money" crowd? I feel like you would argue yourself.
Also.. I don't know what Nike does in 18 months, but I hope they start buying American grown cotton today.
Great job not responding to any of my points. That's okay because they were all valid.
You should've just typed my edit of your post. It would've been the most accurate thing you've said in days.
Supply and demand. If they cannot figure out how to manufacture a pair of shoes without needing 500 dollar in response they will go out of business. How much product cost do you think there is in a pair of Nikes?
People pay 50p dollars for shoes all the time, but they are actually quality footwear, not a made in China pair of Air force 1s.
They have figured it out. That's why they're being manufactured overseas. It's not that complicated. At least for someone who isn't trying to defend the indefensible
I'm defending the idea we might have to pay more, you are defending paying for a pair of shoes thst cost a company 5 bucks, made by a child, to keep cost low, as a democrat.
See how this is going?
I'm defending not completely and intentionally destroying our economy. You have no high horse to climb on.
And you know WHY wages can be so low in those countries?
They do not have to pay $1000/month for a 1-BR apartment, or $3000/month for a single family home. Property values are a small fraction of what they are - even in the poorest areas of America.
We can NEVER match those wage rates, when housing costs here are 10x-100x higher for people.
More accuratly*their leaders have chosen societies that own nothing and exist off the minimums for their working class.
Thr implication isn't that we are going to pay employees less, it's that "ceo" types will.
I disagreed with him but Trump directly told "ceo" types, this is your chance to get market share "not a chance to maximize profits" i believe were his words.
My son in laws manufacturing is done mostly in Asia. For years it was done in China but over the past 5-8 years he has moved much of this production to Cambodia, Viet Nam and Thailand. These folks are easier to do business with and business-wise have better ethics than the Chinese. Now I see this decision has been rewarded by Trump by raising the tariffs on these specific countries higher than what the Chinese tariffs are. As my son in law feared…..Trump and his tariffs make sound business decisions very difficult id not impossible.
At least you're finally admitting this is a willful and intentional destruction of our economy. Baby steps.
Whiskey……Honestly, why would you believe ANYTHING the Orange Turd says? All that phuquer does is LIE and tell half-truths. I dont think he has ever told “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”……Shame on you.
You guys had the ball for 12 of the last 16 years and didn't do shit, time for us to call some plays.
Next time you get the ball, actually do something instead of sending blank checks.
Similar threads
