MAGA

[The_Doc_Man]

Why isnt this thread showing up when I look in Political and Current Events?

Don't know. It shows up for me. Might you have accidentally set it on IGNORE because of thinking you were ignoring Thales750 instead?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Don't know. It shows up for me. Might you have accidentally set it on IGNORE because of thinking you were ignoring Thales750 instead?

I have to be careful while using my phone sometimes I accidentally hit the ignore button along the right edge. I go into preferences and check the ignore list.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Don't know. It shows up for me. Might you have accidentally set it on IGNORE because of thinking you were ignoring Thales750 instead?

All I get is emails that someone posted on this thread. I don't get notifications and this whole forum is flagged as Ignore and I didn't do it.

 

[Thales750]

You sound like a toddler who didn't get his way.

Trump’s ongoing 25% auto tariffs expected to cut sales by millions, cost $100 billion​

 

[Cotswold]

Strange times indeed.

I just wonder, as the tariffs are likely to increase inflation. Why are there calls to reduce interest rates after only a few days?
Is it because big business and the banks need to drag cash back off us all to cover their perceived, or possible losses? Starting now, just in case they need to.

Just like the 2008 credit crash, when their losses were sucked back World wide, plus some more for at least six years.
All of their losses, plus loads more from their crazy overselling schemes which were paid by us all for years.
Nothing changes.

 

[Thales750]

Strange times indeed.

I just wonder, as the tariffs are likely to increase inflation. Why are there calls to reduce interest rates after only a few days?
Is it because big business and the banks need to drag cash back off us all to cover their perceived, or possible losses? Starting now, just in case they need to.

Just like the 2008 credit crash, when their losses were sucked back World wide, plus some more for at least six years.
All of their losses, plus loads more from their crazy overselling schemes which were paid by us all for years.
Nothing changes.

Only this time when the fall happens, we wont have an intelligent moral, or sane person at the helm. We had all three last time, and Trump ended up taking the credit for the success of the economy. Obama had led us through the first recovery, and the idiots cheered Trump.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Only this time when the fall happens, we wont have an intelligent moral, or sane person at the helm. We had all three last time, and Trump ended up taking the credit for the success of the economy. Obama had led us through the first recovery, and the idiots cheered Trump.

Your only option is to go negative because your side lacks a message, and candidate.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Only this time when the fall happens, we wont have an intelligent moral, or sane person at the helm.

I guess by that you mean that you think Trump won't bail out failed companies, the way Bush did. Talk about a "moral hazard". Bush (and Congress because they had the ultimate say in the matter) gave companies that made lousy investment decisions a license to to it again. Continue to risk as much money as you want, the American taxpayer will pick up the tab.

 

[Isaac]

Trump could have handled it better by not gloating over other countries coming to the table. It would have been wiser to simply point out the benefits of going to a zero tariff trade policy for all nations, but instead, he had to make it more about himself and how smart he is. The Chinese are very prideful people that respond to respect, not threats. If he can just humble himself though this process, we might be able to make a deal. Right now, they are willing to wait for the next election cycle where things can change back in their favor with a much weaker president in charge.

Weak president = China
Strong president = China

I still cannot get over the last administration allowing a Chinese spy balloon to float over the US as if it was perfectly normal and nothing to worry about. What kind of leader would allow such a thing to happen willingly?

That's his Achilles heel. He has tactics and ideas but he's way too transparent about it. He can't stand people criticizing him so he lets all the secrets out of the bag on The daily.

And yes Pat fair trade would be nice but the world going into chaos first is not my idea of getting there

 

[Thales750]

Your only option is to go negative because your side lacks a message, and candidate.

My side? You think I'm a democrat because I don't drink the cool aid. All you ever do is compare Trump to Dems. There is no need to have a counter point on his handling of the economy.

No one in our life time has been this inept. In fact, even Herbert Hoover was probably less inept. I study economic, not politics, I leave worrying about insignificant things to you guys.
i do agree that the Dems are incapable of delivering electable people, and their messaging is abysmal. They went on the attack against white males in the Hillary debacle and they haven't recovered. I actually blame them for having Trump 2.0 . The other problem is that you folks will never change your views on Trickle down, or Trump. So we need to get the Dems to include the disenfranchised white guys if we want to save the country from the likes of Trump.

Cause, you know, none of you are going to help.

 

[Thales750]

I guess by that you mean that you think Trump won't bail out failed companies, the way Bush did. Talk about a "moral hazard". Bush (and Congress because they had the ultimate say in the matter) gave companies that made lousy investment decisions a license to to it again. Continue to risk as much money as you want, the American taxpayer will pick up the tab.

I think Trump is leading the world into another great depression. You obviously have no idea how the Fed and the American government under Obama leadership steered the US back to solvency; 2 years before the rest of the world. Trump is driving it into the ground. You folks should wake up and call your congress people.

 

[Pat Hartman]

You obviously have no idea how the Fed and the American government under Obama leadership steered the US back to solvency;

So in your mind, debt = solvency. Maybe you should get an updated copy of your Funk & Wagnall's.

 

[Steve R.]

UK Supreme Court Rules 'Trans Women' Are Not Legal Biological Women

The Supreme Court has ruled that, for the purposes of judging matters of equality, terms like 'woman' and 'sex' refer to biological sex.

www.breitbart.com

The court has ruled: “The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.”

Does this mean that Ketanji Brown Jackson can now tell the difference between men and women?

 

[moke123]

Does this mean that Ketanji Brown Jackson can now tell the difference between men and women?

No, it just means Steve can't tell the difference between US law and UK law.

 

[Steve R.]

No, it just means Steve can't tell the difference between US law and UK law.

That is an unworthy ad hominem attack. Courts do look at the findings of other courts. It was also incredibly stupid of Ketanji Brown Jackson, now a US Supreme Court judge, not to acknowledge biology.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Trump’s ongoing 25% auto tariffs expected to cut sales by millions, cost $100 billion

That's pretty scary and that is the entire point. If the numbers were put into context, and presented rationally, it wouldn't "bleed", so it wouldn't "lead". It probably wouldn't rise to the level of news at all.

So, does the article actually mention over what period of time? Or are we supposed to infer - THIS YEAR ALONE?

 

[moke123]

Courts do look at the findings of other courts.

not in other countries

 

[moke123]

So, does the article actually mention over what period of time? Or are we supposed to infer - THIS YEAR ALONE?

don't you have a preferred search engine?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/12/auto-tariffs-sales-costs.html

 

[Steve R.]

not in other countries

Your ignorance continues to amaze.

According to GROK:
Yes, U.S. courts sometimes look to English courts for guidance, particularly in areas of law rooted in English common law, such as contract, tort, and property law. This practice stems from the shared legal heritage of the U.S. and England, as American law developed from English common law principles brought over by colonists. However, the extent and context of this influence vary.
Key Points:

1. Historical Influence: English common law, as articulated in cases and treatises like those of Blackstone, heavily shaped early American jurisprudence. U.S. courts often cited English precedents in the 18th and 19th centuries when domestic case law was sparse.
2. Modern Relevance:
   • U.S. courts may reference English court decisions as persuasive authority, not binding precedent, especially in cases involving novel issues or where U.S. law is unclear.
   • Areas like commercial law, admiralty, and trusts frequently see citations to English cases due to shared legal principles.
   • For example, in interpreting contracts or statutory language, U.S. courts might consider English rulings for interpretive approaches, particularly if the statute or principle originated in England (e.g., the Statute of Frauds).
3. Limits of Influence:
   • English precedent is less relevant in areas where U.S. law has diverged, such as constitutional law, criminal procedure, or statutory frameworks like the Uniform Commercial Code.
   • The U.S. legal system prioritizes its own precedents and statutes, and English law is only consulted when it offers clarity or insight.
   • Some justices, like Antonin Scalia, have criticized overreliance on foreign law, arguing it undermines U.S. sovereignty and originalist interpretation.
4. Notable Examples:
   • In New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court referenced English libel law to contrast it with the First Amendment’s protections.
   • In corporate law, Delaware courts sometimes look to English chancery court decisions for guidance on fiduciary duties, given the historical influence of equity courts.
5. Contemporary Context:
   • English court rulings are more likely to be cited in international or comparative law contexts, such as arbitration or cross-border disputes.
   • The influence is reciprocal to some extent; English courts occasionally reference U.S. decisions, especially in emerging areas like technology or privacy law.

Why It Happens:

• Shared Legal Tradition: English common law provides a foundational framework for many U.S. legal doctrines.
• Clarity on Novel Issues: English courts, with centuries of case law, offer insights into complex or underdeveloped areas of U.S. law.
• Globalization: In an interconnected world, U.S. courts may look to English decisions to harmonize rulings in international commerce or human rights cases.

Caveats:

• The practice is not universal and depends on the judge, court, and issue. Federal and state courts vary in their openness to foreign law.
• Citing English law can be controversial, especially in politically charged cases, as it may be seen as undermining American legal autonomy.

If you have a specific case or legal area in mind, I can dig deeper into how English precedent has been applied!

 

[Pat Hartman]

don't you have a preferred search engine?

How do I know what article is being quoted from? The left always settles on the same lame, inaccurate, incendiary headline.

And I was correct, assuming that you found the exact article. The headline quotes hard numbers but doesn't bother with a timeframe to put the numbers in context. If the tariffs last 3 weeks, what would the hard numbers be? This is typical leftist lying by omission. The objective of the article is not to inform. It is to terrify the public and cause chaos in general.