Invest your own money, let compound interest be your leverage, and avoid debt like the plague.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) ❤
No. of Recommendations: 2
And they should. I wasn't aware of this. The Felon is targeting specific law firms to shut them down. Just because they were mean to him in some way.
Apparently, those orders are violating multiple amendments, plus the body of the Constitution. Judges are enjoining them. But some firms are cowering (which is what the Felon wants).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfsNe0HdahU
No. of Recommendations: 2
The Felon is targeting specific law firms to shut them down. Just because they were mean to him in some way.
One firm pledged $40 million dollars of free work, and the stripping of security clearances was reversed.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes. That was mentioned by Liz Dye. It's one of the ones I would classify as "cowering".
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yes. That was mentioned by Liz Dye. It's one of the ones I would classify as "cowering".
While stunning, Trump threatened to review all of their client's government contracts. It's that easy. But going after Mark Elias is political retribution writ large and beyond the pale. If we get past this, we need more effective ways to combat this.
No. of Recommendations: 0
If the Dems win enough seat in 2026, they can impeach the Felon. And get a conviction. He's given more than ample cause with all of his illegal actions, including this one, and defying judges' orders, and...well...no point in listing what you already know.
No. of Recommendations: 3
If the Dems win enough seat in 2026, they can impeach the Felon. And get a conviction.
Conviction requires 67 votes in the Senate. The Democrats will not win 20 of the 22 Republican-held Senate seats that are up for election in 2026.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Conviction requires 67 votes in the Senate. The Democrats will not win 20 of the 22 Republican-held Senate seats that are up for election in 2026.
Yeah...probably not. And I doubt there are enough Reps of conscience to get them to 67. There are only two or three that have voted against anything he wanted. But he still should be impeached. Get the laundry list of illegal activities on the record. And pissing him off would be a bonus (which it would do).
And use that laundry list to push reforms so that this can never happen again (i.e. a POTUS from either party flaunting judges' orders, etc). Assuming we survive with an intact republic, and don't go the way of the Weimar. Which isn't assured at this point.
No. of Recommendations: 0
“ The Democrats will not win 20 of the 22 Republican-held Senate seats that are up for election in 2026.”
If the republicans fuck wit social security they might.
No. of Recommendations: 1
If the republicans fuck wit social security they might.
Even then, as long as people think the Felon is sticking it to people they don't like, they may put up with it. I don't understand that psychology, but I know it exists.
No. of Recommendations: 2
But he still should be impeached. Get the laundry list of illegal activities on the record.
What specifically would you have him be impeached for? Maladministration is not an impeachable offense. Neither is trying to do things that are exceedingly likely to be found unconstitutional or to violate some statute. Not only are none of those things crimes (which is what impeachment is supposed to be for), but those are things that every President does at some point - I don't think there's been a single President in the modern era that hasn't had something get overturned at every stage of judicial review and lose 9-0 at SCOTUS as being unconstitutional or violating some law. It is baked into the structure of our government that the President and Congress will have very different ideas about what each branch of government gets to control - disputes over that can't be the basis for impeachment.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Democrats will not win 20 of the 22 Republican-held Senate seats that are up for election in 2026.
Quite true. They will be doing very well to flip just 3 seats to get a majority. Many of the republican seats in the next Senate election are very safe.
But will local voters be able to switch from MAGA republicans to non-MAGA republicans? That could improve the chances for a successful impeachment.
Keep in mind that Trump's last impeachment garnered 7 republican votes for impeachment. It is possible his actions will get a similar result by 2027? I don't know, but I don't think it's impossible.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 1
What specifically would you have him be impeached for?
His Felony convictions in New York.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sure. Testing the Constitution (or some statute) is probably legit most of the time.
But ignoring a judge's order is not. No one is above the law (or at least they didn't used to be), and obeying a judge's order is -pretty much by definition- "the law".
Also, I would think that targeting specific businesses purely for revenge would be construed as illegal and an abuse of power. Which I would think is impeachable.
We probably can't get him on policy things like immigration. But he should be "gettable" for one or both of those things.
No. of Recommendations: 3
His Felony convictions in New York.
LOL. That's not how it works.
No. of Recommendations: 2
But will local voters be able to switch from MAGA republicans to non-MAGA republicans?
Probably not.
As was pointed out upthread, the biggest possibility of incumbents getting in a lot of hot water is if they try to mess around with Social Security. There's other things that could dramatically increase the chances of Democrats winning some of the general election fights - a recession or significant price increases triggered by a trade war, perhaps. But those aren't the sorts of things that are likely to lead incumbent Senators to lose a primary the way taking the wrong vote on Social Security might.
It's important to remember, I think, that most of what the Administration is doing is being well-received by Republican voters. Trump is doing exactly what much of his base wants him to do. IMHO, he's doing what some of the progressive base in the Democratic party has longed for their Presidents to do on certain issues they found important: take every single action he can regardless of whether it is likely to be found lawful or not. Don't negotiate against yourself, don't pre-emptively hold yourself back because your legal position is weak - do it, and let the other side stop you if they can. The ur-example of that on the Democratic side was student loan forgiveness during the Biden Administration, where Biden and other Democratic leaders were fairly certain that the President did not have unilateral authority to cancel student loans in the way he did, but they went ahead anyway, because their base wanted them to "fight" until they lost.
So the electorate in a GOP primary is going to love what Trump has been doing (for the most part), and would be more likely to turn out an incumbent who opposed those MAGA efforts rather than one who enabled Trump.
No. of Recommendations: 3
But ignoring a judge's order is not. No one is above the law (or at least they didn't used to be), and obeying a judge's order is -pretty much by definition- "the law".
Probably - but he hasn't done that yet. Trump hasn't just ignored an order. The closest they've come is with the El Salvador flights, and there they've tried to take refuge in arguing that they were trying to comply with what they claim to have understood the order to require. Even if there's an argument that his administration did that with the El Salvador flights (and the judge hasn't ruled yet), I'm fairly confident that the President wasn't personally involved in the granular decisions whether or not to turn the planes around at 7:00 PM on a Saturday night.
Most lawsuits against the government don't name the President personally. They're filed against the agency and the agency heads (again, think NFIB v. Sebelius or Loper Bright vs. Raimondo, filed against the Secretaries of HHS and Commerce, respectively). There's not going to be many situations where the President can actually violate a court order, because most orders and injunctions are going to be entered against the people who actually run the agencies - because most statutes actually vest authority in the agency heads, not the President. The President gets to appoint the agency heads, but it's the agency heads that have the nominal authority to do (or not do) things under the applicable rules.
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you look at how the Republicans are trying to strip us of our right to vote, we may not have anyone but white Republican males voting.
https://apnews.com/article/save-act-voting-proof-c...CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A voter in Milford, New Hampshire, missed out on approving the town’s $19 million operating budget, electing a cemetery trustee and buying a new dump truck. In Durham, an 18-year-old high school student did not get a say in who should serve on the school board or whether $125,000 should go toward replacing artificial turf on athletic fields.
Neither was able to participate in recent town elections in New Hampshire thanks to a new state law requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote. Their experiences, recounted by town clerks, could prove instructive for the rest of the country as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act advances in Congress and more than a dozen states consider similar legislation.
“Everything that conservatives tried to downplay, New Hampshire told us exactly what would happen on a national scale under the SAVE Act,” said Greta Bedekovics, a former policy adviser for Senate Democrats who is now with the Center for American Progress.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Probably - but he hasn't done that yet. Trump hasn't just ignored an order.
Yeah, he kinda did. There was some debate about "oh, well the plane is outside US airspace", and other nonsense.
I don't know the legal precedent (if any), but it seems to me that persons carrying out the Felon's orders is the same as the Felon doing them.
Had Hitler survived to see the Nuremburg Trials, do you really think anyone would have taken him seriously if he said "I didn't actually kill anyone personally"? I don't think so. His orders, his responsibility.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Yeah, he kinda did. There was some debate about "oh, well the plane is outside US airspace", and other nonsense.
I don't know the legal precedent (if any), but it seems to me that persons carrying out the Felon's orders is the same as the Felon doing them.
It's not the same. Trump is not bound by orders that are issued against his subordinates - unless he's a party to the action, he's not directly bound by the court. He would probably be responsible if he ordered the folks who were bound by the orders to disobey an order of the court, but that's exceptionally unlikely to have taken place in this instance.
The particular hearing in question took place over the weekend, on a Saturday night at around 7:00 PM. AFAIK, the planes landed in El Salvador less than two hours later. It is beyond unlikely that Trump was even made aware of a oral district court order issued on a weekend evening, let alone that he personally would have been consulted to give instruction on whether to comply with the oral directions within the two hour time frame that were relevant here. The choice not to order the planes back to the U.S. would not have been made by POTUS, but several levels down in the government. It's beyond unlikely that this could be framed as the POTUS personally defying an order, or giving unlawful orders that contradict a court order.
