The Next President is...

[Sua Sponte]

1 minute ago, HeloDude said:

So if and when the cuts to federal employees come, you’ll be ok with it, right?  It’s called the law I suppose.  Don’t like it, run for Congress.

Come? Where the fuck have you been in the past few months? Are they legal cuts or illegal cuts? The current administration sure has been taking some losses in the courts for illegal firing, then rehiring, federal employees (which costs taxpayers even more money).

[HeloDude]

3 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Come? Where the fuck have you been in the past few months? Are they legal cuts or illegal cuts? The current administration sure has been taking some losses in the courts for illegal firing, then rehiring, federal employees (which costs taxpayers even more money).

I expect SCOTUS to rule in Trump’s favor.  Hence the “if and when” part of my post.  And then you’ll be good it with it I suppose.  

[brickhistory]

5 minutes ago, busdriver said:

I don't disagree.  I am sad and frustrated when people who should know better revel in the shit, and abandon their professed values.  

Those "professed values" got kicked in their teeth repeatedly for quite a while.

"Conspiracy theory," "trust the science," "Russia, Russia, Russia," etc, etc, etc.

I want perp walks, I want court-martials, I want massive deportations.

I want consequences so that maybe, just maybe, we can walk this back some.

But it won't be rewound.  Next time the pendulum swings, the revenge will be against the Right, again.

[Sua Sponte]

1 minute ago, HeloDude said:

I expect SCOTUS to rule in Trump’s favor.  Hence the “if and when” part of my post.  And then you’ll be good it with it I suppose.  

Yeah, MAGAats like yourself REALLY expected Coney Barrett to go along with the conservatives for the Trump 2.0 issues already brought to the court. Unfortunately for you, Roberts and her have been handing out some losses to your cult by siding with the liberals on the court. I guess they must be "activist judges," right? Better go on X and shitpost calling for their impeachment, I guess?

I don't understand the "if and when" part of your post. Are you assuming you know how the DoD RIF process works or have seen it? I have, and I won't be part of that but continue to spout off about conjecture of things you don't know.

[busdriver]

7 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Those "professed values" got kicked in their teeth repeatedly for quite a while.

"Conspiracy theory," "trust the science," "Russia, Russia, Russia," etc, etc, etc.

I want perp walks, I want court-martials, I want massive deportations.

I want consequences so that maybe, just maybe, we can walk this back some.

But it won't be rewound.  Next time the pendulum swings, the revenge will be against the Right, again.

wrath, and nihilism

[brickhistory]

[brickhistory]

5 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Yeah, MAGAats like yourself REALLY expected Coney Barrett to go along with the conservatives for the Trump 2.0 issues already brought to the court. Unfortunately for you, Roberts and her have been handing out some losses to your cult by siding with the liberals on the court. I guess they must be "activist judges," right? Better go on X and shitpost calling for their impeachment, I guess?

I don't understand the "if and when" part of your post. Are you assuming you know how the DoD RIF process works or have seen it? I have, and I won't be part of that but continue to spout off about conjecture of things you don't know.

Fine, fine example of that grad school polish you so cherish...

[Sua Sponte]

1 minute ago, brickhistory said:

Fine, fine example of that grad school polish you so cherish...

Which one? I've graduated from a few.

[HeloDude]

5 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Yeah, MAGAats like yourself REALLY expected Coney Barrett to go along with the conservatives for the Trump 2.0 issues already brought to the court. Unfortunately for you, Roberts and her have been handing out some losses to your cult by siding with the liberals on the court. I guess they must be "activist judges," right? Better go on X and shitpost calling for their impeachment, I guess?

I don't understand the "if and when" part of your post. Are you assuming you know how the DoD RIF process works or have seen it? I have, and I won't be part of that but continue to spout off about conjecture of things you don't know.

I was in the AF for 3 RIFs—one around 2007, one in 2010/11 timeframe, and the bigger one in 2014.  Funny, I don’t recall progressives getting all butthurt about military members losing their jobs.

I’m a fan of discussing the issues, not just a blanket whatever Trump is doing, though I do like most of it.  If you’re curious to know where I stand on any issue, ask away.  But yes, I agree much more with Trump than with Kamala.  If you want to paint me with a broad brush though, I most likely agree with Massie or Rand Paul.  

[Sua Sponte]

Just now, HeloDude said:

I was in the AF for 3 RIFs—one around 2007, one in 2010/11 timeframe, and the bigger one in 2014.  Funny, I don’t recall progressives getting all butthurt about military members losing their jobs.

I’m a fan of discussing the issues, not just a blanket whatever Trump is doing, though I do like most of it.  If you’re curious to know where I stand on any issue, ask away.  But yes, I agree much more with Trump than with Kamala.  If you want to paint me with a broad brush though, I most likely agree with Massie or Rand Paul.  

That's great, and so was I. By the way, Military RIF =! Civilian RIF when it comes to procedures and weighted categories. The DoD has different RIFing procedures than what OPM sends out to the other agencies.

So, do you agree with Paul voting today with the Dems on the Senate resolution against the Canadian tariffs? 

[SurelySerious]

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

That's great, and so was I. By the way, Military RIF =! Civilian RIF when it comes to procedures and weighted categories. The DoD has different RIFing procedures than what OPM sends out to the other agencies.

So, do you agree with Paul voting today with the Dems on the Senate resolution against the Canadian tariffs? 

I honestly appreciate the legitimate question.
 

I’m very anti-tariff on principle…because I’m very anti-tax on principle.  Now Trump saying he can use tariffs (or their threat) to better position us wrt trade agreements, then I’d like to see what that can do strategy wise.  Because let’s not pretend that tariffs on our exports with other countries (not necessarily speaking about Canada) are very fair.  But tariffs for the sake of tariffs, yeah, they suck…just like all the other taxes.

But politically, does anybody rationally think that Trump’s greatest opposition in the US wrt to tariffs are because those same people are against taxes?

[TreeA10]

And now, the rest of the story.  The deported father from Maryland was convicted of being a MS-13 gang member in 2019.  

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2025/04/02/the-fine-print-on-deportations-matters-n2654819

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, TreeA10 said:

And now, the rest of the story.  The deported father from Maryland was convicted of being a MS-13 gang member in 2019.  

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2025/04/02/the-fine-print-on-deportations-matters-n2654819

The rest of the story is a blog citing some random X account that did some “analysis” of court documents where the judge found a preponderance of evidence to deny bond, but to not order removal?

 

 

 

Edited April 3 by Sua Sponte

[ClearedHot]

11 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Which one? I've graduated from a few.

Same, including Harvard which was an ass tear of indoctrination, but I digress.

11 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

He did, and then a federal judge via due process said he could be deported, but not to where he's from. He was deported to where he's from, thus breaking a court order. An immigration judge gave him due process by a hearing to determine if he can be deported back to where he's from (he couldn't).

Lets rationally discuss this, I won't call you an activist Libtard, don't call me a Magahat (for the record I don't believe either of us fall in those categories.

First and foremost, I am a rule of law guy and I agree, there was supposed to be due process (it separates us from the savages), and there was a a deportation order just not back to country of origin as you pointed out.  Did they break the order, yes.  The explanation is it was an error, I am hoping that is true because BOTH sides should about lawful orders...again the savages part.

I think there is a bigger discussion about activist judges like this.  While I am NOT in favor of impeaching a judge simply because you don't like his or her ruling, there is something fundamentally wrong when a single person (who was not even elected), can stop federal policy...even the President doesn't have that much authority in most cases.  The situation is exacerbated when appellants go judge shopping.  Even the 12 circuit courts are made up of panels...we have to fix that part of the system.

It is disingenuous for EITHER side to scream rule of law when BOTH sides do it.  Lets be real, maybe I missed it, but I don't recall you objecting when Biden opened the border or when he forgave student debt - Even when SCOTUS told him he couldn't!

At the end of the day we have to find some middle ground, I believe that is what the framers wanted....discussion, compromise, logical thought and finally an agreement in the middle.

[busdriver]

One of the things that may (hopefully) come out of Trump 2.0 is the branches re-asserting their independence.  

There are parts of the judiciary doing it now, Rand and Kaine are starting to push back against tariffs.  

Each branch jealousy guarding its power is exactly what the framers wanted.

[Day Man]

who would've guessed a guy who bankrupted a casino wasn't great at business 🤷‍♂️

[BashiChuni]

1 minute ago, Day Man said:

who would've guessed a guy who bankrupted a casino wasn't great at business 🤷‍♂️

hopefully you sold all your stock in a panic!!!

 

[17D_guy]

1 hour ago, busdriver said:

One of the things that may (hopefully) come out of Trump 2.0 is the branches re-asserting their independence.  

There are parts of the judiciary doing it now, Rand and Kaine are starting to push back against tariffs.  

Each branch jealousy guarding its power is exactly what the framers wanted.

With the R reps dodging town halls and refusing to pick up the phone when asked to do just that...highly unlikely while Trump is a supposed king maker.

Never mind what happened mid-terms in 2018 I guess.

[brickhistory]

6 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

With the R reps dodging town halls and refusing to pick up the phone when asked to do just that...highly unlikely while Trump is a supposed king maker.

Never mind what happened mid-terms in 2018 I guess.

Now do the 2024 town halls held by the losing side.  Nothing about screening of audience, pre-planted questions, edited replies, etc.  

Also, do I assume you were good with Biden (actually his handlers) demanding and the press accepting to have his very few press events complete with previously supplied questions?

And say, who's paying for those townhall agitators?  If only there were media reports about the funding of the "grass root" protestors. 

Valid point regarding midterms.  Hence why Trump has about 15 months or so to move the needle significantly to avoid a 2026 midterm loss of the House and/or Senate (not likely).

Also why the district court national injunction-palooza to slow him down.  By the time, it gets to the Supreme Court, where such national decisions by a district court judge should be mooted since it's not in the Constitution at all, the dirt in the Trump gears could have the Left's desired impact.

[SurelySerious]

 

[SurelySerious]

[SurelySerious]

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Same, including Harvard which was an ass tear of indoctrination, but I digress.

Lets rationally discuss this, I won't call you an activist Libtard, don't call me a Magahat (for the record I don't believe either of us fall in those categories.

First and foremost, I am a rule of law guy and I agree, there was supposed to be due process (it separates us from the savages), and there was a a deportation order just not back to country of origin as you pointed out.  Did they break the order, yes.  The explanation is it was an error, I am hoping that is true because BOTH sides should about lawful orders...again the savages part.

I think there is a bigger discussion about activist judges like this.  While I am NOT in favor of impeaching a judge simply because you don't like his or her ruling, there is something fundamentally wrong when a single person (who was not even elected), can stop federal policy...even the President doesn't have that much authority in most cases.  The situation is exacerbated when appellants go judge shopping.  Even the 12 circuit courts are made up of panels...we have to fix that part of the system.

It is disingenuous for EITHER side to scream rule of law when BOTH sides do it.  Lets be real, maybe I missed it, but I don't recall you objecting when Biden opened the border or when he forgave student debt - Even when SCOTUS told him he couldn't!

At the end of the day we have to find some middle ground, I believe that is what the framers wanted....discussion, compromise, logical thought and finally an agreement in the middle.

At least Ted Kaczynski was a Harvard graduate. I'm a Georgetown graduate, so unfortunately we have Bill Clinton. I agree; let's rationally discuss this. It wasn't so much as the government breaking the court order; it was their response to the court of "Well, we broke the order due to an administrative mistake, but now he's in El Salvador, so he's out of our jurisdiction, oh well." When an issue, especially a complex one, is brought in front of the court a lot of times it takes a while for the court to digest the issues and issue a ruling, it's not always going to happen via a filed motion or oral argument. If it's a permanent injunction, then due process allows one to appeal to a higher court. 

Let's not act like the government, both Dem and GOP administrations, don't go judge (really forum) shopping. The current DOJ filed asking for a declaratory judgment in West Texas stating that it should be allowed to terminate collective bargaining agreements between eight agencies and dozens of affiliates of the American Federation of Government Employees. Why in West Texas? Because there was a 100% chance of being (and has been) assigned to a Trump-appointed district judge, and where any appeal goes to the Fifth Circuit.

I guess you missed it where I voted for Trump (I'm an independent in Colorado like most voters are; I can vote for either) largely due to Biden's laissez-faire immigration policy that was dictated by progressive NGOs. Both can be wrong; we need to stop with whataboutism. The Signalgate stuff should've been handled by the Trump Admin saying, "We fucked up, we're sorry, won't happen again." But that's never going to happen because Trump doesn't apologize and/or admit fault, and neither will his cabinet. 

Working across the aisle, being civil, and compromising by being bipartisan largely died when Ted Kennedy and John McCain did. That doesn't "sell" to the voters. It's "us versus them, winners and losers, etc." If the DNC wins the midterms, and especially in 2028, we're going to see the undoing of Trump's changes by the government swinging violently to the left. The only people who are going to suffer are the American people.

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Never mind what happened mid-terms in 2018 I guess.

The GOP gained Senate seats?