-
Originally posted by DwightShrutefurther evidence that the Left hates America
Dwight, do you see the irony and the hypocrisy of the lefties in here calling out people they say we '' believe everything Trump says '' without any thought to question it...???
Yet, everything Trump does and says is absolutely false and erroneous to them??!!. Even though Inflation is down over 5 points, gas down over 2 dollars, border should be closed ........................ ETC ETC.....................?
I would not argue with their foolishness in this matter.
GREAT HOCKEY GAMES BY THE WAY...!!!
Leave a comment:
-
This guy will NEVER be President...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MGpPW...&feature=sharehttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/MGpPW...&feature=shareLeave a comment:
-
A man named John Barron called into C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” on Friday morning to complain about the Supreme Court’s ruling against President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
Barron was described as a Republican from Virginia, and as he began talking about the “worst decision” the Supreme Court has ever made, his voice sounded a lot like Trump’s. It just so happens that John Barron is also the pseudonym Trump used throughout the ’80s when he wanted to talk to journalists directly ― but instead pretended to be his own spokesperson.
“This is the worst decision you ever have in your life practically,” Barron said on C-SPAN.
He continued: “This is a terrible decision, and you have Hakeem Jeffries, who ... he’s a dope. And you have Chuck Schumer, who can’t cook a cheeseburger. Of course these people are happy. Of course these people are happy. But true Americans will not be happy.”
Greta Brawner, host of “Washington Journal,” cut off Barron and took a call from another viewer.
Barron’s call came during a segment that hears opinions from viewers. Barron voiced his opinion on the Supreme Court’s ruling right after the court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Trump doesn’t have the authority to impose tariffs.
Neither C-SPAN nor the White House immediately responded to a request for comment.
After the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump’s opinion was similar to Barron’s. During a news conference Friday afternoon, Trump called the court a “disgrace” and said the ruling was an “embarrassment to their families.”
“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump said.
According to a 2016 Washington Post article, Barron was “Trump’s go-to alias when he was under scrutiny, in need of a tough front man or otherwise wanting to convey a message without attaching his own name to it.”
Barron was quoted several times throughout the 1980s, but in 1990, Trump testified in a lawsuit: “I believe on occasion I used that name.”
Trump also has reportedly used a different pseudonym apart from John Barron. A former People reporter said that in 1991, Trump admitted to her that he pretended to be a spokesperson named John Miller.
“He said that he was sorry that he made the call, that was a joke that went awry,” Sue Carswell said in 2016.
Leave a comment:
-
Is the Russian hate troll bot handler in the room with you now?Originally posted by OptionalLeave a comment:
-
Proof Democrats are the scum of America and the world.?. Hypocrites is too mild of a term to describe them.
Haters, liars, killers and slimy are better descriptions...
https://youtu.be/PIr7nsJPSGA?t=286
Leave a comment:
-
BS NOW MADDOWBLOG
The absurd claim at the heart of Trump’s suit against JPMorgan Chase
“You’re not allowed to do what they did,” the president said of the banking giant, making a claim that’s difficult to take seriously.
Leave a comment:
-
WASHINGTON — Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch pulled no punches in taking aim at his colleagues on the Supreme Court for a lack of consistency in approaching broad assertions of presidential power made by Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
Gorsuch was part of the 6-3 majority that struck down most of Trump’s tariffs on Friday, but he wrote a separate 46-page opinion that chided several of his fellow justices over how they approached the case.
His colleagues were effectively applying the same Supreme Court precedent differently under Trump than they did under Biden, he argued, writing: “It is an interesting turn of events.”
His invective focused on a theory known as the “major questions doctrine,” which adherents say bars sweeping presidential action not specifically authorized by Congress. The conservative-majority court embraced the doctrine while Biden was in office to strike down broad plans, such as his effort to forgive student loan debt.
But in ruling against Trump on tariffs Friday, the conservative majority splintered. Gorsuch, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts were in the majority, finding in part that Trump’s tariffs needed to go through Congress. Three others, Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, dissented.
“It shows you how much internal dissension there is on the Supreme Court right now,” said Robin Effron, a professor at Fordham University School of Law.
Roberts’ 21-page majority opinion reads as if he hoped it would attract nine votes, she added, but instead it was a “huge internal fail.”
Even some of the justices who agreed with the outcome did not sign on to the part of Roberts’ opinion that sought to adopt the major questions doctrine in curbing Trump’s tariffs, raising questions about how it will be applied in future cases.
While the court’s three liberals, who backed Biden and criticized the major questions doctrine in past rulings, were in the majority against Trump, they again did not embrace the theory.
Gorsuch, who has wholeheartedly supported the major questions doctrine, pointed to his colleagues’ waffling on the issue in his opinion.
“Past critics of the major questions doctrine do not object to its application in this case,” he said, in a reference to the liberal justices.
“Still others who have joined major questions decisions in the past dissent from today’s application of the doctrine,” he added, referring to the dissenting conservatives.
Leave a comment:
-
Yep the same old Dwight. Every response is a Tweeter post he read. Will not even try to search and find anything from other sources.Originally posted by stevenashLeave a comment:
-
You use one source, the bots at 'X''
And that Truth Social platform you're addicted to is an echo chamber.
Yet you rag on me for using dozens of sources from across the political spectrum.
Please don't be butt-hurt when I say you're a dime to my dollar, pal.
Leave a comment:
-
Still with the Russia hoax huh? The Leftist cult TDSers are always pushing the narrative they are told by the redicals and the MSM. The same one you use pronouns and believe that men dressing up as women isn't a mental illness. Let's not forget you made several post claim Musk did a Nazi salute.Originally posted by Optional
reasonable republicans? funny that you consider yourself one CostanzaOriginally posted by stevenash
Leave a comment:
-
Dwight doesn't have independent views Hareeba.Originally posted by Hareeba!
He just parrots what his Russian hate troll bot handlers or the MAGA cult from Truth Social feed him daily. Notice how discombobulated he gets if you make any point not about his scripted party talking points?
That's why he reposts such dumb stuff as Australia has a GST so that is the same as Trump's tariffs.
His posts are meant for stupid people to get emotional over. Not make real sense.
You're trying to have a meaningful debate with a handful of morons and a bad actor. Not worth the waste of time.Leave a comment:
-
They're not capable of original thought.Originally posted by Hareeba!
Trump tells them what to think.
Reasonsable republicans figured that out months ago.
Leave a comment:
-
No he/him, I simply proved you were lying and you couldn't defend your lies. That is why you put me on ignore. You are still lying and posting garbage. A man will defend himself and his position. I coward runs away and hides. Your post history is proof.Originally posted by Hareeba!
Leave a comment:
-
but DipShit as per usual logs a laugh at it!Originally posted by Hareeba!
Just continuing his utterly childish behaviour from the old site's thread when he would post a stupid gif in response to my every post before I was forced to put him on ignore.
Just watch him post another laugh at this response. Tells you all you ever need to know about him.Leave a comment:
-
Not a single one of you have bothered to express a view as to why this is justified!Originally posted by Hareeba!
Leave a comment:
-
On February 19, 2026, U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in the case Urquilla-Ramos v. Trump, issued a 34-page ruling giving @TheJusticeDept and @AGPamBondi a schooling in the rule of law.
HIGHLIGHTS: Judge Goodwin stated:
"Antiseptic judicial rhetoric cannot do justice to what is happening. Across the interior of the United States, agents of the federal government—masked, anonymous, armed with military weapons, operating from unmarked vehicles, acting without warrants of any kind—are seizing persons for civil immigration violations and imprisoning them without any semblance of due process."
"The systematic character of this practice and its deliberate elimination of every structural feature that distinguishes constitutional authority from raw force place it beyond the reach of ordinary legal description. It is an assault on the constitutional order. It is what the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent. It is what the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids."
"The overarching issue is whether the federal government may deploy anonymous agents to seize persons on American streets and highways for civil violations, without warrants, without identification, and without any process before or after. The Constitution does not permit that."
"In our constitutional republic, governmental force derives its authority from the Constitution. But that authority is not unlimited. The Government’s power is legitimate only because it is derived from the People and exercised through law by identifiable public officers answerable to the public and to the courts."
"The structure of the Constitution guarantees visibility. Both the officer and the force he employs are traceable to authority delegated by the People and subject to the limits imposed by law. When the Government uses force against the public, the citizen can recognize the officer as a lawful representative. The public can evaluate the act. The judiciary can later review it."
"Every stop, arrest, detention, and use of force can be tested against the Constitution’s protections. Not so here. For these reasons and the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), [ECF No. 26], is GRANTED."
"The court FINDS that both his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as well as his Fifth Amendment right to due process have been violated. Immediate release is the only relief sufficient to remedy Petitioner’s unlawful detention."
IN HIS CONCLUSION: Judge Goodwin wrote:
"An anonymous government is no government at all. It cannot be held accountable. A masked agent freely uses force without justifying his actions, and the public cannot name him to challenge his conduct."
"A regime of secret policing has no place in our society. Here, the Government’s power is derived by the People, and the People must be able to identify the Government when it acts to infringe on their liberty. Masks obscure government action and deprive the public of its Fourth Amendment protections."
"Therefore, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, [ECF No. 26], is GRANTED. Petitioner is ORDERED released immediately from civil immigration custody. Respondents are PROHIBITED from re-arresting and detaining Petitioner absent significant change in circumstances to justify detention or subject to the determination of a neutral and detached decisionmaker."
Leave a comment:
-
another generation of "peaceful protesters" in the making.
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment:
-
wait a sec. You were all for Biden using tax payer dollars to bride voters by paying off student loans. He spent 190 BILLION! The SCOTUS said he couldn't. Pelosi said he isn't allowed. He did it anyway. He bypassed Congress to do so, and you said fukk all. In fact, you thought it was a great idea. But now all of a sudden, 10 billion OMG what a travesty.Originally posted by Hareeba!
Nice try he/him. You are only fooling dumb people.
Leave a comment:
-
No doubt you know many and yet somehow strangely enough, you only seem to post nonsense from Leftist outlets like msn.com or The Raw Story and repeat their talking points.Originally posted by stevenash
That's like being stranded in a island and starving to death because you were on the part which had nothing, not even a coconut tree. While on the other side of the island, a mere 30 minute walk, there was a fresh water stream, tons of coconut trees, wild chickens roaming everywhere and a chest containing a wide assortment of knives, spears, lighters, snorkeling equipment and a Starlink router with a fully charged iphone.Leave a comment:
-
She is 100% correct.Originally posted by ByeShea
The UN via Resolution 2803 merely recognised the Board Of Peace with the stated purpose of "promoting peacekeeping around the world".
It did not establish the BOP.
The BOP is a concept put forward by Trump and totally under his control. The UN has nothing to do with it.
As stated by Leigh McGowan the BOP is essentially a plan to develop Gaza into a resort for billionaires and tourism.
That plan was clearly set out in a presentation at the World Economic Forum by Jared Kushner whilst trying to get attendee nations to sign up to the BOP.
Are you really ok with Trump bypassing Congress and taking $10B USD out of the US Treasury to transfer to this entity?
Leave a comment:
-
Read it and weep. Only time will tell who will be crying the Trump Blues soon...
Five important reasons why the Trump economy is about to really blast off
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ByeShea
Grok shoots her down and she replies
Bullshit Grok. Listen to Kushner speech at Davos. Listen to Kushner speech yesterday. Listen to Donald Trump’s speech yesterday. Give me a fucking break.
Leave a comment:
-
I don't really feel one way or another about it, particularly since Trump has earned my fiscal trust via DOGE.Originally posted by Hareeba!
But the comments following the video were interesting.
But some guy named Bacon Overlord had something to say about her video: "Do you look up ANYTHING... EVER??? It was set up by the United Nations (resolution 2803) and Trump was invited to join it. What's it do? Oh... STOP WARS."
To which IAmPoliticsGirl replied: "I look everything up. Yes it was set up by the UN, then Donald Trump took over and changed the mandate."
Bacon: "Then how is that being "robbed"? Plus, you said he created it. So, you admit you lied."
adds one AwsmMary: "OK then, right there you just admitted that you were wrong on your video because in your video you said that Donald Trump created this organization"
(... at this point IAmPoliticsGirl goes dark, like most people do online after getting getting checkmated after 1 or 2 moves.)
You can really pick 'em, Hareeba.Leave a comment:
-
I'd be fascinated to learn how the resident magats feel about thisLeave a comment:
-
Originally posted by stevenash
It will be interesting to see how Dems can 1 up themselves after the paddle fiasco .
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: